جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « unilateral promise » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

A unilateral promise in this article is a statement made by a person with the intention to be legally bound to do or refuse to do something or transfer property to another. Is such a promise binding without acceptance or not? There is still disagreement between jurists in European countries as well as Iranian jurists. Obviously, the concept of a unilateral promise communicated to the addressee is different from the contract and pre-contract negotiations. Because the promisor performs this act with the intention of fulfilling a legal obligation and creating trust and confidence, it will have legal effect. This legal act can only be justified in the form of an Iqa’ (Unilateral act). Iqa’ as a general theory and in the light of the rule of will, and according to narrations and verses, has an unlimited scope and includes a unilateral promise. Therefore, the will itself is the criterion as a source of commitment, whether it comes from a promise or not. So that the source and requirement of duty arise from the promise in the voluntary act, and the law also protects. The law protects any legal act by specifying it and even by not obstructing or by remaining silent if it is not contrary to public order and good morals. It seems that Article 10 of the Iran Civil Code, which is enacted in the case of contracts, is not specific but rather overriding and can include any legal action, including a unilateral promise as an Iqa’.

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.