Studying the Effects of Unauthorized Transaction in Imamiyah Jurisprudence, Law of Iran and English Law
In Shia jurisprudence and law of Iran the ruling related to unauthorized transaction in most cases is ineffectiveness. In English law, the representative's unauthorized transaction for himself except for exceptional cases is void and his transaction for others could be authorized only when his...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fas |
| Published: |
University of Qom
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://csiw.qom.ac.ir/article_1475_05afcefe6f3b668a764a259734dae9ad.pdf |
| Summary: | In Shia jurisprudence and law of Iran the ruling related to unauthorized transaction in most cases is ineffectiveness. In English law, the representative's unauthorized transaction for himself except for exceptional cases is void and his transaction for others could be authorized only when his intention of representation is revealed. This difference in ruling is rooted in distinct bases of these systems. The authors, as the result of studying these bases, believe that the basis for unauthorized transactions in Shia jurisprudence and law of Iran is the "reference to the owner" theory, while the English law follows the "administration of contracts" theory for the unauthorized transactions of the representative for himself and "representation resulted from authorization" theory as regards the unauthorized transaction of the representative for the owner. Despite the difference in terms of bases and rulings, there are many features shared by the above mentioned legal systems as to effects of unauthorized transactions; insofar as one can, against the majority, claim that the rules of unauthorized transactions in Imamiyah jurisprudence and law of Iran, like English law, can only be implemented under certain conditions. Examination of the effects of the unauthorized transactions demonstrates that permission of denial or authorization and adherence of the authorized representative to the transaction are among the most significant effects of the unauthorized transaction in both legal systems. Acceptance of the aforementioned facts as the common effects cause the following questions: whether the permission of denial or authorization can be inherited or transferred by/to others? Whether the authorized owner has the right to terminate or transfer the transaction subject before the authorization? Answering these questions and the comparative study of the said effects contribute to the better accommodation of this type of transactions with the public order and globalization of the contracts law. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2476-4213 2476-4221 |