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

The term "unilateral contract" in appearance contains an explicit conflict; due to the fact that contracts have at least two parties and are bilateral. In general, unilateral legal actions are outside the scope of contracts and are the equivalent of unilateral juridical actions. Unilateral contract in English Law refers to a contract in which, upon acceptance, only the offeror has an obligation. The offeree in a unilateral contract has no obligations, and acceptance is done only by conduct. In French Law, the concept of a unilateral contract refers to a single-obligation contract that can be accepted in any of the available ways to express acceptance. In Iranian legal system, a unilateral contract is not recognized under such a title. However, there is a similar entity called single-obligation contracts compatible with its French meaning and comparable with a unilateral contract in English law if acceptance is by conduct. In English law, as a general rule, the contract's conclusion time is the same as the receipt time of acceptance. Due to the offeree's reliance on the offer, the offeror loses the opportunity to refer the offer in the unilateral contract. The contract is concluded from the beginning of the offeree's action. There are many ambiguities in Iran's law regarding the issues raised because the legal texts and the jurists' opinions are not explicit in these cases. While their Inclusion in civil law adds to the richness of legal literature but in practice, this division's effects can eliminate courts' ambiguities in this regard. This comparative study's results indicate that Iranian Law can accept the unilateral contract without any obstacles. This subject is discussed in this article through a descriptive, analytical and comparative method.

A Single-member Company with limited liability is a new foundation that has been formed to avoid Dummy Corporation. As their names suggest, the founder of these companies is a natural or legal person. Currently, Iran Trade Bill has recognized these companies in Article 479 by considering some rules for them. Hence, the questions about these emerging companies before final approval of this bill. The purpose of this study is to answer two questions: what is the legal nature of dummy corporations? Can the unilateral intention of the founder cause some obligations for the legal personality of the company to others? This study tends to prove the legal actions and nature of a single-member company with limited liability in the frame of unilateral obligation theory (or unilateral contract). Unilateral obligation occurs when a person incurs an obligation under his/her own will and liability.

Invalidity is the prevailing theory about reluctant contracts and it is deemed a clear verdict in the Iranian legal literature. As common and recognized as the reluctant contract may be, the reluctant or involuntary unilateral contract is, on the other hand, vague, unfamiliar and subject of debate. Based on the unity of views and general principles of contract and unilateral obligation, some argue that similar to unilateral contracts, reluctant unilateral contracts must also be considered invalid; While the narrative evidence points to the invalidity of unilateral divorces and releases occurring under coercion. The present research aims at studying the quality and evidences of reluctant unilateral contract verdict.

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.