Mohammad Mansouri; Mohamad Mahdi Asharif; Sayyed Mohammad Sadegh Tabatabaie
Abstract
Due to the wide scope of compromise contract, in addition to most nominate contracts, innominate contracts can be concluded with title of compromise contract. But is any agreement outside the nominate contracts necessarily considered to be compromise contract and does it not need to be intended as a ...
Read More
Due to the wide scope of compromise contract, in addition to most nominate contracts, innominate contracts can be concluded with title of compromise contract. But is any agreement outside the nominate contracts necessarily considered to be compromise contract and does it not need to be intended as a compromise contract or its content and its nature to conclude it? Does compromise have its own particular content that must be intended like the other nominate contract, or is it characterized by not having a framework? Some jurists believe that the compromise contract has a concept equivalent to article 10 of civil law and notwithstanding the compromise contract which covers all innominate contracts, article 10 is not required. In addition to opposing the viewpoint of synonymy of compromise contract and innominate contracts with religious jurisprudence and civil law who regard compromise as having a specific content. For the following reasons this view cannot be accepted and compromise contract and innominate contracts must be considered two different concepts. Firstly: A type of agreement can be considered as compromise contract in which outcome of contract includes agreement, not every agreement out of nominate contract. Secondly: Compromise contract can be substitute of the nominate contracts, while innominate contracts cannot. Thirdly: Compromise contract is necessarily irrevocable contract and innominate contracts may be revocable contract. Fourthly: In compromise based on negligence, detailed knowledge is not required, but in innominate contracts, essential conditions, including detailed knowledge, are required. The only instance in which an innominate contract can be considered as compromise is one that denotes resolving or preventing conflict
Mahdi Jalili; Alireza Fasihizadeh; Mohammad sadegh Tabatabaei
Abstract
This article takes a comparative approach to various Islamic sects and lays emphasis on Shiite references while taking benefit from analytical and descriptive method , and after examining the basis upon which the binding and revocable character of contracts lies and analyzing the arguments presented ...
Read More
This article takes a comparative approach to various Islamic sects and lays emphasis on Shiite references while taking benefit from analytical and descriptive method , and after examining the basis upon which the binding and revocable character of contracts lies and analyzing the arguments presented by proponents and opponents of the binding or revocable character of partnership and presenting contradictory and solving answers to the view holders, leads in the end to the conclusion that considering the vagueness of the civil code and despite the opposing viewpoints of some Islamic jurists and on the other hand, based on the approach adopted by high-profile jurists such as Shahid-e- Sani and Seyed Mohammad Kazem Tabatabaee , known as Saheb Orva and the attention of the article 167 of the Constitution, partnership contract should be recognized as having a binding character as far as its shareholding making aspect is considered and revocable with regard to the fact that partners acquire the right to control and lay hands on the shared property . This trend is supported more by the doctrine as well .
