جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « حق فسخ » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Recourse from contract termination refers to the ability of a person who terminates a contract to subsequently regret their decision and revoke the termination, thereby reinstating the contract. This research, conducted through an analytical-descriptive method and relying on library sources, explores the nature of the right to terminate and its distinction from the right of recourse from termination. To establish the prohibition of such recourse, even if it may be supported with caution, this study cites principles such as "what is void cannot be revived," "the prohibition of benefiting from void property," "dominion," "the disappearance of the effects of termination after its establishment," and, most importantly, the principle of "the primacy of necessity in contracts." Additionally, it argues against the existence of valid reasons for allowing recourse from the right to terminate, while critically examining opposing arguments. It is suggested that recourse (revocation) from contract termination presents both jurisprudential and legal challenges, leading to practical complications and increased disorder in contracts, resulting in an escalation of lawsuits, as well as certain societal costs.

the contract, sometimes it causes ignorance of the other parties, and sometimes it is not like these last two types. In the first two cases, it causes the nullity of the contract, but in the third case, according to popular opinion, it does not cause the nullity of the contract, but whether it can affect the contract or not? There is a serious difference of opinion among experts. According to popular opinion, the effect of such conditions on the contract has appeared in the form of granting the right of termination for constitutional law.This research, with analytical-descriptive method and referring to library sources, seeks to answer the question whether the conditions in question give rise to the right to terminate the contract. What views or views have jurists and jurists put forward in this field? Is the granting of the right of termination for a conditional agreement compatible with the standards of transaction jurisprudence? What is the position of contemporary legal systems in this field?The result of the research shows that although the point of view of absolute proof of the right of termination without following a condition according to the foundations and documentation is the option of violation of the condition; However, the principle of establishing the contract and the principle of adherence to the illegal matter provides the conditions leading to the detailed view of the knowledge and ignorance of the constitutional law regarding corruption, and in this respect, it is more compatible with jurisprudential and legal logic.

When a contract is concluded between two or more persons, the contractual obligations of the seller require him to deliver the goods or goods sold to the buyer in accordance with the terms of the contract and the agreement of the parties, and accordingly in the law of most countries In the seller and its non-compliance with the contract, a performance guarantee is provided to support the buyer so that the buyer can use that performance guarantee if necessary. One of these guarantees is the rule of "price reduction", which is equivalent to "Arsh" in our jurisprudence and legal system. Reducing the price or Arsh means the difference between the price of a healthy and defective seller that the buyer receives from the seller if the seller is defective. However, the reduction of the price is not explicitly mentioned in the current laws of our country as well as jurisprudence; However, in the mentioned systems, there are institutions that have the same effects, goals and functions, among which we can mention obtaining the arch in the option of defect and dividing the price in the option of discrimination. In this article, which is collected by descriptive-analytical method and also by library method, its information is examined by examining the rule of "price reduction" in different systems and countries, as well as the International Convention on the Sale of Goods (Vienna-1980), Principles of Contract Law. European (PECL) as well as Iranian law are discussed.

In contracts, either party can terminate the contract based on one of the options of civil law. Most of these options can be found in all contracts. In this article, the author seeks to answer the question of whether in e-commerce contracts that are subject to special law, one of the parties can invoke one of the options of civil law to terminate the contracts? In this regard, the works of some available authors were reviewed and they followed the view that civil law options are among the general rules of contracts and can be applied in electronic contracts .Examining and comparing the options of civil code and the article of the electronic commerce law and considering the special features of these contracts and the various powers that the legislator has considered for termination, it seems that in electronic contracts the parties have no right to invoke the options of the civil code, because in the law of electronic commerce, there are cases of termination in a desirable and sufficient way. therefore the types of termination right in these contracts are just the ones mentioned in the electronic commerce law.

If the object of sale is defective in the contract of sale and needs to be repaired, the customer will have the right to terminate the contract under certain conditions. In this case, if the customer wants to exercise his right of termination, and on the other hand, the seller insisted on maintaining the contract and executing the contract, and to eliminate the non-compliance of the goods and to compensate for their negligence, a serious question in this regard arises here: what effect does such an action have on the buyer's right of termination if it is reasonable, appropriate and harmless? In clearer terms, if in our case the seller removes what has caused the option before the termination of the contract by the beneficiary of an option (buyer), in such a case, does the right of termination disappear or not? In this article, we review this important issue in Iranian jurisprudence and law, the International Convention on the Sale of Goods, adopted in 1980, and international trade principles. It seems that in each of the above-mentioned systems, apart from minor differences in the terms and conditions of application, acceptance of contract retention and height preference caused by the seller to create an option has priority over the customer's option. The research method in this research will be descriptive-analytical.

In Article 239 of the Civil Code of Iran, the effect of violating the condition of the act is the right of termination and obligation in the order of obligation on the right of termination. If we consider the condition as the creator of the right and its existential effect to protect the interests of mashrūṭun lah (person in whose favor a condition is made), the terms and regulations of the condition must be formulated and interpreted in such a way that it practically comes to the help of  the mashrūṭun lah. The order provided in article 239 not only does not meet this expectation, but sometimes itself causes inconvenience and imposes unjust damages on the mashrūṭun lah and violates the rule of the need for full compensation for the contractual damages and causes instability in balance principle. On the other hand, the right of termination does not take precedence over the obligation to cause the submission. Therefore, the provision of both rights, i.e. the option of termination and the possibility of binding optionally, and in case of signing the transaction, claiming a condition as damages based on expediency and envy in each case, has been considered as the chosen view, which is the subject of the present research carried out in a descriptive-analytical method.

The subject of this article is the analysis of two judgments in the field of claiming moral damages.
The subject of these two judgments is that the obligor did not fulfill his obligation to film a wedding ceremony and did not deliver the wedding videos. The obligee has also filed a lawsuit and demanded compensation for the damages incurred by her.
Naturally, one of the examples of damages is the moral damage that has been inflicted on the obligee due to not having a lasting visual record of the wedding ceremony.
Now, it remains to be seen under what circumstances this type of damage can be claimed in the Iranian legal system.
In this article, considering the fact that moral damages sought are directly caused by the obligor and are basically predictable, the ability to claim such damages is emphasized.
Another issue is the method of compensation. In these two judgments, two methods have been used to compensate for the moral damage: one, the obligation to "pay the equivalent of the salary received" and the other, the obligation to "pay the equivalent of the costs of the wedding ceremony."
In this article, emphasizing the fact that the judge should think in a way that is compatible with the "circumstances of the case", an attempt is made to examine the appropriateness of the abovementioned methods.

Most jurisprudential sources address misrepresentation or deception (Tadlis) in marriage contracts and elaborate on its instances. On the contrary, the Civil Code does not touch upon the option of deceit in the marriage contract and offers nothing in regards to its instances and effects. Therefore, this paper first examined. the jurisprudential and legal senses of misrepresentation, and then investigated the conditions and elements of misrepresentation. It was revealed that misrepresentation only requires external/objective elements (actus reus), not mental elements (mens rea). Afterward, a number of old and new instances of misrepresentation were examined considering modern developments in science. Some instances fell beyond and some fell within the scope of misrepresentation. In terms of misrepresentation effects, the effects were positive both during the engagement and when the marriage contract is signed, and the party committing misrepresentation assumes criminal liabilities as well as civil ones.

Under articles 37 and 48 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), the seller is entitled to cure the lack of conformity of the goods due to specific circumstances. The same legal establishment has been accepted in the Article 7-1-4 0f the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UPICC).Anticipating the seller’s right to cure, one controversial issue raised is the status of the buyerchr('39')s right to avoidance. Subsequently, the question arisen is whether the sellerchr('39')s right to cure is prior or the buyerchr('39')s right to avoidance. While there are various interpretations of Article 48 leading to disagreements, in UPICC, the buyer has no right to avoidance in case of seller’s cure under Article 7-1-4. Similarly, according to general principals including Article 478 of the Civil Code in Iranian legal system, the buyer has no right to terminate if the seller is ready to cure.To conclude, we can say the seller’s right to cure from the perspective of the doctrine, judicial precedent, legal and economic analysis has priority over buyer’s right to avoidance.

Contradictory possession means the non-fulfillment of the condition stated in the contract. According to the terms of the contract, the violation of the condition can be examined in three cases of violation of the condition of the adjective, verb and result. Considering that the parties to the contract have considered a specific purpose and motivation for inserting the condition in the contract, without a doubt their relationship is effective and creates legal conditions for constitutionalism. The jurists disagree on the freedom of contract and on freedom of condition, along with contracts, but in this case they agree that whenever a contract is concluded with full pillars and conditions, it will have binding power. This study, by descriptively examining the views of Imami and Sunni jurists and analyzing its reasons, has considered the legal act (contract or iqa ') that has been done against the condition to be correct, but the constitutional case can take two steps against violating the condition: First, it can be contractual. To terminate the condition in which the condition is stated and, secondly, to request compensation in case of conditional violation against the damage caused to him. Of course, in some cases, such as marriage, etc., this general rule must be deviated, as in some cases, the legislature has deviated

Before concluding a contract, people often discuss the basic elements of the contract and the conditions surrounding it in order to form a contract based on the negotiations, but in such negotiations, some people act dishonestly and deceive the other party to get his approval. In such cases, in order to protect the deceived party, Article 439 of the Civil Code has given him the authority to terminate the contract based on the option of fraud. According to the mentioned article, if a fraudulent operation is performed by one of the parties to the contract, it causes the option of termination for the other party, but in the civil law, in case a person other than the parties deceives one of the parties to the contract and the contract is based on such fraud, there will be no sentences. Examining the jurisprudential background of the subject and the conditions for the emergence of the option of fraud and analyzing the position of the third party in relation to the contract, it is determined that in most cases except in marriage, when deceit and tricks are used by the third party without collusion with one of the parties, there would be no fraud option for the deceived party, but since the action of the deceiving person may lead to the loss of the deceived party, he has the right to refer to the deceiver to compensate the damage caused by the contract in accordance with the general rules of civil liability.

legislators in both countries Afghanistan and Iran have provided that, happening unavoidable external event is a cause for non-responsibility that Force major is one type of the event. Now considering effect of the event on obligator’s responsibility and also natural difference between omission and positive obligations, we must to answer this, has the difference what effect on the destiny of the obligation and basis of non-responsibility. According to this, this paper by referring library resources and using analytic-description methods tries to specify the answer for the questions. By precise analyzing and general legal rules and jurisprudence, how the effect of the force major on breaking omission obligation is different than positive one and for this reason, the basis of non-responsibility is the removal of obligation and in result, lack of necessary conditions for establishing responsibility in contractual liability. also by happening the force major, the obligation is suspended or the contract is terminated. In this situation, by the basis, the consideration for none-performance of contract is claimable against where it is provided for delay in performance of the contract, if the force major take places.

In Iranian and American law, Restitution; as the most important effect of rescission, has been determined similarly antecedent to rescission. In iranian law, first, islamic lawyers has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution and analyzed their effects while in American legal system, due to some problems and lack of unified judicial procedure, lawyers and some theorists in last years has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution. Moreover, rescission has based on two theories in iranian legal system; Bilateral Consent and Do No Harm (LA ZARAR). In the other hand, American legal system has been based on unjust enrichment theory. In this article, first, the process of recognition of the right in two legal systems has inspected and later, the base of rescission has compared between two legal systems. The process in two legal systems (although the process in American law has happened with a long historical distance) demonstrate that due to lack of coherent theory about rescission and thereupon lack of unified Judicial procedure in common law, law theorist coming close to general theory of rescission in written legal systems

Prevalence of some contractual terms, in spite of their unfairness, changing the issue to an undeniable fact, confronting free will with difficulty in contractual relationships, have caused theory of unfair terms to be common in all law systems in recent centuries, in a way that now a days, few countries can be found which have no trace of development of the theory. Recognition of concept of unfairness and determining a criterion to identify it, are not necessarily enough to achieve final goal of confronting unfairness. Another aspect of supporting victims of such contractual terms is intention to establish enforcement which can give maximum protection to losers of such unfairness.
Studies have shown that preventing a further split between the dominant supporter and the poorly-constrained side lead to the adoption of the EU directive of 13/93 that member states have recognized absolute invalidity, relative invalidity, right of terminate .Accepting the theory of unconscionability in the United States is to reciprocate this principle in the UCC in the mid-20th century and if the court as a matter of law finds the clause to have been unconscionable will choose the Sanction.
In Iran law, the existing capabilities in jurisprudence, as well as the judiciary's consideration of legal principles and interpretative techniques, can be applied in this regard. One of the most important of these is the censorship of public policy and the abuse of the state of emergency. However, the results of the investigation indicate the need for the legislator to act explicitly.

The conclusion of a contract conditionally indicates that one party (the obligee) has conditioned his or her obligation regarding the provisions of the contract to the fulfilment of a condition or some conditions by the other party (the obliged); in fact, the obligee has written his or her will conditionally. Therefore, if the obliged party contravene condition or conditions of the contract, the continuity or the possibility of the contract annulment should be decided about. Regardless of the Condition of Result which it is not possible to be contravened, and the Condition of Quality whose contravention leaves no way but the possibility of annulment for the obligee, different opinions have been presented about facing the contravention of the Condition of Action in jurisprudential texts. From among the opinions we can mention that some jurisprudents have introduced the possibility of forcing the obliged party to fulfill the condition or conditions along with the possibility of the contract annulment. Some others believe that forcing the obliged party is not possible and it is just possible to annul the conditioned contract. However, in Shiite jurisprudential texts, the possibility of marriage annulment due to the contravention from Condition of Action has been left unsaid and it seems that the marriage contract, from the viewpoint of most of the jurisprudents has been excluded from the general rule prevailing the contracts. The tendency of some jurisprudents and researchers in presenting viewpoints, including calling the offender from the condition as a guilty person, or nullifying the legal act whose leaving has been a condition of the marriage contract, indicates the preclusion of marriage annulment in their viewpoints. In Sunni jurisprudential schools, only the opinions of some Hanbali jurisprudents have strengthened the possibility of marriage annulment due to the contravention of Condition of Action. In this study, it has been attempted to prove the permission of marriage annulment due to contravention of Condition of Action through presenting independent reasons on the possibility of marriage annulment based on the Option of Unfulfilled Condition (Khiyar al-Ishtirat) and also scientific and exact review of the reasons of opponents to annulment.