Reza Valavion; Ali Najaf zadeh
Abstract
The contract company is one of the complex legislative institutions in the civil law, which has led to the emergence of ambiguities in the society. Despite the intention of the legislator to incorporate a contractual partnership under certain contracts (Al Masami contracts) in Article 571 of the Civil ...
Read More
The contract company is one of the complex legislative institutions in the civil law, which has led to the emergence of ambiguities in the society. Despite the intention of the legislator to incorporate a contractual partnership under certain contracts (Al Masami contracts) in Article 571 of the Civil Code, why have none of the aforementioned articles taken steps in accordance with the intention of the legislator, and finally the audience will face the duality of the legislator's mentality with a wrong idea. became; Why has the legislator taken an evasive way to not deal with the contract as a unique and special reason for the civil company? If the legislator does not have an opinion on the existence of a civil company contract, then what is the justification for incorporating it into certain contracts of the civil law? Won't the spread of contract companies in people's transactions double the need to amend the civil law? Discovering a solution to these questions has led to the writing of this article; The author believes that the social necessity of heavy means due to the pressure of the society's need forced the legislator to establish the company in terms of certain contracts. However, since it could not benefit from the influence of contemporary jurists' thoughts with the formulation of civil law, and in fact, it has been caught in a limbo in the analysis of the civil partnership contract. There will be no doubt in using the contract as an exclusive reason for the realization of the civil partnership (whether in tangible or intangible property) and the mixing of properties is not necessary because the partnership will be realized without obtaining a share in the property. However, this operation with the credit of the partners will be the reason for the contract to be fulfilled, and there will be no need for a separate action, and the function of the contract will be both a reason for spreading and giving permission and permission to seize the property of the company.
reza valavion
Abstract
Review of Article 892 of Civil Code on "Hujb-i Nuqsani" ('Partial Exclusion from Inheritance') Reza Valavioun[1] Date Received: 04 March 2019 ...
Read More
Review of Article 892 of Civil Code on "Hujb-i Nuqsani" ('Partial Exclusion from Inheritance') Reza Valavioun[1] Date Received: 04 March 2019 Date Accepted: 12 Desember 2020 Abstract Our legislator has borrowed the term "Hujb-i Nuqsani" ('partial exclusion') from Imamieh jurisprudence, discussed it without any changes in article 886 of Civil Code, and then restated it in chapter 4 of Civil Code. In article 892 of Civil Law of partial exclusion from inheritance, the legislator has mentioned father as the partially excluded one. According to article 892 of Civil Code, when a dead person has children or descendants, parents of the dead person are deprived of inheriting more than one-third. However father is not among the partially excluded, and the legislator's sentence which contains an error, is due to adherence to Imamieh jurisprudence. And most authors of Civil Law, without reviewing the issue, have repeated the aforementioned error in their books.In this article, we have not only explained and clarified the error, but also suggested to omit it. The summary of this article is as follows:A: A child whether son or daughter decreases the mother's share from one-third to one-sixth.B: Father's siblings (under certain conditions) decrease mother's share and prevents the mother from inheriting the rest of the inheritance on the basis of the mother's actual share.C: A male child decreases the mother's share because it's unsuspected that the mother inherits the rest of the inheritance on the basis of her actual share.D: A female child does not prevent mother to inherit the rest of inheritance on the basis of her actual share.E: A child does not prevent the parents from inheriting the rest of inheritance. [1]. Assistant professor of private law, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, IRAN. Email: valaviounreza@gmail.com
