MohammadSadegh Tabatabaei; Hamed Heidari Irani; Nafiseh Jafari
Abstract
One of the important issues of adoption institute is supervisor’s marriage with adopted person. Although this subject is predicted in new Law on the Protection of Unsupervised and Bad-supervised Teens enacted in 2013, because of the silence of its executive regulation and disapproval of especial ...
Read More
One of the important issues of adoption institute is supervisor’s marriage with adopted person. Although this subject is predicted in new Law on the Protection of Unsupervised and Bad-supervised Teens enacted in 2013, because of the silence of its executive regulation and disapproval of especial executive regulations in this regard, as well as the moral and social consequences of considering it as an absolute possibility, there is disagreement in practical precedent of judicial courts in this respect. In French law, child adoption is divided into two categories namely perfect and simple ones for each of which there are certain governing provisions. Perfect adopted child has no difference with real child in respect of marriage obstacles and simple adopted, although is prohibited from marrying his/her adopter, but in some cases can marry some family members of the adopter. In this article the possibility of marriage of unsupervised individuals with their supervisors is examined in French and Iranian laws and at last it is concluded that the marriage of adopted and adopter is prohibited in law of France. While, in Iranian law, paying attention to jurisprudential orders, Arts. 1045-1049 of the Iranian Civil Code and non-exhaustiveness of marriage obstacles, this marriage is not prohibited; however, note of Art. 26 of the aforementioned law (2013) has subjected this marriage to the permission of a competent court and observing the adopted child’s interest. In this regard, in order to preventing ill consequences of such a marriage, the mechanism of governing or secondary orders can be applied for its absolute prohibition.
Mahdi Shahabi; nafisah Jafari
Abstract
Contrary to the French Civil Code, the Iranian counterpart, which follows the Imamiyah Jurisprudence, does not consider the cause of obligation as one of the elements of the validity of the contract. On this basis, some jurists believe that the legislator has intentionally deleted this causal element ...
Read More
Contrary to the French Civil Code, the Iranian counterpart, which follows the Imamiyah Jurisprudence, does not consider the cause of obligation as one of the elements of the validity of the contract. On this basis, some jurists believe that the legislator has intentionally deleted this causal element and has refused to introduce it in the contract, since all the consequences of this concept are accessible with reference to the third paragraph of the Article 90 of Iranian Civil Code concerning the object of transaction. This means that the unity of the cause and the object in the law of contracts are observed. Nevertheless, it appears that these elements are two distinct concepts and although they share some similarities, they are different in many respects. So, the main question in this regard is whether we can recognize the concept of cause in the Iranian law, and what are the effects of the duality of cause and object in the law of contracts. This research, in a comparative analysis framework, attempts to provide answers to these questions.