seyed mahdi dadmarzi; Azam Heidari
Abstract
Nature of Reward is one of the subjects on which there is disagreement in Imamiyah Jurisprudence and Law. Recognition of the legal nature of Reward is of significance in terms of the conditions of fulfillment and its consequences and rules. The purpose of this article is recognizing the nature of Reward ...
Read More
Nature of Reward is one of the subjects on which there is disagreement in Imamiyah Jurisprudence and Law. Recognition of the legal nature of Reward is of significance in terms of the conditions of fulfillment and its consequences and rules. The purpose of this article is recognizing the nature of Reward in Imamieh Jurisprudence, Iranian law and law of the west. The Jurists and lawyers have expressed different views in this regard. In the Imamiyah Jurisprudence there is no separation between offer of reward to the public and offer of reward to the certain person and jurists have stated their opinions in general terms. In the Iranian Civil Code the nature of reward is not clearly explained and the term of obligation has been employed in an absolute way for refering to its nature. According to jurisprudential and legal analyses, it seems that reward have various external examples that can be determined in each case according to its requirements in the form of contract or unilateral juridical act or common causality. In law of the west, offer of reward to a certain person is not disputed and its nature is considered to be contractual. What is controversial is the offer of reward to the public. Some legal systems have accepted the the contractual approach and others have adopted the reward as a unilateral promise in which there is no need for acceptance and knowledge of the rewarder is not required except for the case of an explicit stipulation in the contract.
Mohammad Salehi Mazandarani; Hanieh Zakerinia
Abstract
In Unilateral Legal Acts, only one party's volition is creative. As it is exceptional to seize the rights of others, the legislators need to inspect the perfection and influence of the volition. So they provide some formalities for Unilateral Legal Acts. But the most essential issue is “the effect ...
Read More
In Unilateral Legal Acts, only one party's volition is creative. As it is exceptional to seize the rights of others, the legislators need to inspect the perfection and influence of the volition. So they provide some formalities for Unilateral Legal Acts. But the most essential issue is “the effect of these formalities on determinant's volition”: whether they are terms to create Unilateral Legal Acts or terms to prove them. To answer this necessity in present article, a comparative study on all kinds of unilateral legal acts, in Iranian law, other Islamic countries law (especially Egypt) and also Western countries law (mostly French and English Law as the leading examples of the two legal systems: Romano-Germanic and Common Law), has been done. By an inductive and comparative research, we classify these formalities, according to the phase (time) of regarding the formalities: “in the process of volition to create” unilateral legal act, and, “before” or “after” that. We also make formalities of various unilateral legal acts classified and distinguished, by presenting their legal related provisions in internal and foreign laws.