All juridical acts including unilateral and bilateral contracts require the will and intention of individuals in their existence. In other words, first one should have a knowledge and awareness of a matter of fact and then his will or intention towards a juridical act would be formed. However, the Article 356 of the Civil Code is seemingly in conflict with these general rules. This Article explicitly reads that if something is considered an accessory to the object of sale, its ownership will be transferred to the purchaser even if the parties to the contract be ignorant to them and there has not been any intention concerning it. The present article deals with the following issues: Is the ruling of this Article contrary to the principal rule? Is it counted as an implied legal term? Is implied legal term essentially valid? Is this article consistent with the will and intention of the parties to the contract? Is this article far from the above foundations following another rule?
esmaeili, M., & agha mosa tehrani, R. (2011). Accessories to the Object of Sale. The Journal of Islamic Law Research, 12(1), 121-150. doi: 10.30497/law.2012.1036
MLA
mohsen esmaeili; reza agha mosa tehrani. "Accessories to the Object of Sale". The Journal of Islamic Law Research, 12, 1, 2011, 121-150. doi: 10.30497/law.2012.1036
HARVARD
esmaeili, M., agha mosa tehrani, R. (2011). 'Accessories to the Object of Sale', The Journal of Islamic Law Research, 12(1), pp. 121-150. doi: 10.30497/law.2012.1036
VANCOUVER
esmaeili, M., agha mosa tehrani, R. Accessories to the Object of Sale. The Journal of Islamic Law Research, 2011; 12(1): 121-150. doi: 10.30497/law.2012.1036
)
