فهرست مطالب mohammad jaafarimajd

According to articles 550 & 552 of civil law, bailment of capital is revocable contract. Rule of civil law about absolute bailment of capital is correct, but it is discussable about delayed bailment of capital. Regardless of whether existing practical necessities, doesn’t accept this notion, The subject is theoretically controversial. One of the law's solutions to solve the problem is, inserting revocable contract in binding contract But this notion was not relief the problem completely.
It is necessary to consider the basis of frustration of contracts after death or incapacity of parties. Since most lawyers considered basis of article 954 civil law in permissible contracts, believe that it isn’t possible to convert permissible contracts to binding contract. They are revocable contract, even if insert in binding contract and they will dissolve with death or incapacity of parties. Therefore it is necessary to be checked, whether frustration of contracts through death or incapacity of parties is essential characteristic of revocable contracts? In other word every contract that be dissolved with death or incapacity of parties is revocable contract or it is a separate matter, isn’t depend to irrevocability and revocability of contracts. In my opinion any where parties personality is essential, it will dissolved by death or incapacity, whether the contract is revocable or irrevocable. The purpose of this article is answer to this question that if with respect to principle of freedom of contracts, it is possible that convert bailment of capital and other permissible contracts to binding contract or not.