عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
In spite of the fact that the Iranian Civil Code, influenced by the common view shared among jurists, considers the effect of lease contracts as the ownership of profits, some legal experts, influenced by the French Law, believe that the lease of a contract is totally or partially a promissory one. This view relies on the French thought that ownership is a real right, but this basis is incompatible with principles of the Iranian Civil Code that does not admit the object of ownership to be merely a concrete one. In defining lease, some jurists have used the phrase "dominion over profiteering" instead of "transfer of ownership of profits." Also some lawyers, influenced by this alteration, have concluded that these jurists have agreed with the French approach which considers lease as a promissory contract. According to the fundamental difference between the meaning of "dominion over the object of lease" in the French Law and the jurisprudential definitions, it is wrong to consider the two approaches to be the same. The term dominion over profiteering in French Law means physical giving whereas in Islamic jurisprudence this means a legal transfer. Moreover in the French Law analysis the lessee has no legal relationship with the object of lease and is merely a creditor of his or her landlord. This result is unacceptable in the Civil Law of Iran.