The justification of the civil sentences

Abstract

One of the subjects that comparative jurisprudence places a lot of emphasis on is the causality of judicial decisions. In this view, causality is crucial and serves various purposes that the Jordanian legislator, who required the judge to give a reasoned justification for his decision, would not have been unaware of. The study determines the requirements that must be satisfied in the judgment's justifications for them to be legitimate and tenable, as well as the consequences of failing to meet any of them and flaws in causality. This is due to the lack of adoption of the true and proper notion of causation, in addition to urging the Jordanian Court of Cassation to distinguish between the concepts of lack of reasons and the concept of lack of reasons. The research offers several recommendations, the most important of which is the need to amend the article that requires causation to include the penalty of invalidity in the event of violating this obligation. Focusing on the precise definition of faulty reasoning is not a lack of arguments or a flaw in them but rather an incorrect justification for the decision.