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

In most legal systems,interpretation is performed with the aim of determining the common will and intention of the parties.Sometimes,the contract texts contain vague,insufficient,defective,or contradictory elements that make it difficult to reveal the common intention of the parties,and may even lead to interpretations in clear contrast with the parties’common intention.At times,the circumstances governing the execution of a contract change to a degree that it is not possible to see the contract as the true interpretation of the intention of the parties.Hermeneutic interpretation methods revolve around three elements:the text,the author,and the interpreter.Among hermeneutic interpretation approaches,the hermeneutic circle is in greater harmony with major theories in the modern contract law and the contract law in Iran.interpreter considers all the mental elements and presuppositions of the parties when the text is prepared,and recreates the contract using implied terms,and accepted customs of the parties.This interpretation method is more flexible than traditional methods,thus achieving greater harmony with justice and fairness criteria by putting contractual relations under the government of the criteria of the actual will.this research sought to examine the methods of interpretation common in hermeneutics,enumerate the strengths and weaknesses of each,delve into major theories in the modern contract law such as neoformalism and convention-based interpretations,and finally develop a balanced method free of extremism according to current circumstances and the principles of the modern contract law.

Proving “the validity of lexicologist’s statement” is an important matter in the Principles of Jurisprudence which has not been considered yet in the perspective of the realities of the lexical history. The word “lexicologist” also has not been defined yet. Both of them will be defined in detail in the present text. The history of lexicography indicates that the Arabic words have been communicated to us properly and completely. The history is significantly confidence-building and although in some cases a number of the scholars of the Principles of Jurisprudence have been working efficiently to prove “lexicologist’s statement” in different ways like lexicologist’s proficiency, Insidād e-Ṣaghīr, the practice of the wise people, and Ijmā٫ (unanimous consensus of Mujtaḥidīn), it is not sufficient. Field studies and historical investigations of the Arab lexicography make it clear that “the clear history of Arab lexicography, the proper communication of the words, the Arab’s original explanations” and “lexicologist’s proficiency”- of course in a new explanation- are two major evidences to prove the validity of the lexicologist’s statement.