hamed khubyari; pooria razi
Abstract
Imamiyah jurists and Iranian legal experts have divided contracts into valid and invalid in terms of their effect and often, classified the unauthorized contract under the valid contracts. Comparative studies in recent years have led to the emergence of a new circumstance as voidable contracts in Iranian ...
Read More
Imamiyah jurists and Iranian legal experts have divided contracts into valid and invalid in terms of their effect and often, classified the unauthorized contract under the valid contracts. Comparative studies in recent years have led to the emergence of a new circumstance as voidable contracts in Iranian law. These contracts are considered to be valid and operated by the parties but they are voidable due to reasons such as mistake, duress or operation. Referring to some articles of the Commercial Code and Sea Act, the legal experts though consider the relative refutation to be in contradiction with the general rules of contracts, have still accepted them as a necessary and new establishment in specific cases. The authors, studying the reasons of the relative nullity in common law and comparing it with similar cases in Iranian law through a descriptive-analytic method, have concluded that there is no necessity for discussion of the voidable contracts in Iranian law, common law and Roman-German law and contrary to what is taken certain, the claimed extensions are in line with the general rules of the contracts related to the unauthorized contracts and are justified.
hamed khubyari; seyyed mohammad sadegh tabatabai
Abstract
In Shia jurisprudence and law of Iran the ruling related to unauthorized transaction in most cases is ineffectiveness. In English law, the representative's unauthorized transaction for himself except for exceptional cases is void and his transaction for others could be authorized only when his intention ...
Read More
In Shia jurisprudence and law of Iran the ruling related to unauthorized transaction in most cases is ineffectiveness. In English law, the representative's unauthorized transaction for himself except for exceptional cases is void and his transaction for others could be authorized only when his intention of representation is revealed. This difference in ruling is rooted in distinct bases of these systems. The authors, as the result of studying these bases, believe that the basis for unauthorized transactions in Shia jurisprudence and law of Iran is the "reference to the owner" theory, while the English law follows the "administration of contracts" theory for the unauthorized transactions of the representative for himself and "representation resulted from authorization" theory as regards the unauthorized transaction of the representative for the owner. Despite the difference in terms of bases and rulings, there are many features shared by the above mentioned legal systems as to effects of unauthorized transactions; insofar as one can, against the majority, claim that the rules of unauthorized transactions in Imamiyah jurisprudence and law of Iran, like English law, can only be implemented under certain conditions. Examination of the effects of the unauthorized transactions demonstrates that permission of denial or authorization and adherence of the authorized representative to the transaction are among the most significant effects of the unauthorized transaction in both legal systems. Acceptance of the aforementioned facts as the common effects cause the following questions: whether the permission of denial or authorization can be inherited or transferred by/to others? Whether the authorized owner has the right to terminate or transfer the transaction subject before the authorization? Answering these questions and the comparative study of the said effects contribute to the better accommodation of this type of transactions with the public order and globalization of the contracts law.