THE EFFECT OF REFUSING TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPLY CONTRACT DISPUTES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN EGYPTIAN AND OMANI LAW

This article addresses an evidentiary imbalance that frequently shapes commercial supply disputes in Egypt and Oman: the dispositive documents are often held by one party, which may refuse production. The topic is selected because current practice shows that the ordinary allocation of the burden of proof can enable strategic non-disclosure and distort outcomes. The study identifies a gap in Arabic comparative writing, where good faith in contractual performance is commonly discussed as a substantive principle, while the procedural consequences of documentary non-cooperation are treated separately. The article proceeds on two linked hypotheses. First, good faith in performance (Egyptian Civil Code, art 148; Omani Civil Transactions Law, art 156) entails a duty of documentary cooperation in supply relationships. Second, unjustified refusal to produce a dispositive document may warrant a controlled judicial presumption and may also support contractual fault where the refusal deprives the other party of a serious chance to prove its claim. Methodologically, the study uses doctrinal legal analysis and an integrated comparison of statutory provisions and selected judicial approaches in both systems. No empirical instruments or statistical data are used. The study’s results are operational. It formulates a three-part test for unjustified refusal (control, dispositive relevance, absence of legitimate justification). It also proposes a staged reasoning method for courts to draw the presumption while safeguarding the right of defence and legitimate confidentiality. The article concludes with targeted recommendations, including clearer procedural standards and calibrated effects for refusal, especially in Egyptian law.