Investigating the Flow of Unauthorized Transactions Rulings in Covenant Contracts from the Perspective of Imami Jurisprudence, Iranian and British Law

Most authors consider unauthorized transactions in the Iranian legal system as one of the general rules of contracts and have extended it to permissive and covenant contracts. This generalization (expansion) has led to rulings that are sometimes contrary to public order. For example, he obligates the principal to a contract whose obligor is unknown to him. On the other hand, it is not possible to identify covenant contracts that merely give rise to an imperative rule. In English law, the transaction of another person’s property may be made to the unauthorized person or the owner in the form of a covenant, which in the first case is exceptional and in the second case is in accordance with the rule. The complexities of Imami jurisprudence in separating the imperative rules from the status rules, as well as the fact that the jurisprudential reasoning system is more systematic than in British law, have caused the scope limitation of the possibility of concluding covenant contracts in a form of unauthorized contract in Iranian law. In this article, by comparatively examining the provisions of covenant contracts and the effects of unauthorized contracts in Imami jurisprudence, Iranian and British law, we come to the conclusion that concluding a covenant contract in Iranian law is not a general rule in contracts and it is possible only if the subject of the transaction or the subject of the obligation is the property of another and if the act was committed; is possible when to have financial effects.