نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانش‌آموخته دکتری فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
2 استاد، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
3 استاد، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
∴ Introduction ∴
Shia Jurisprudence has provided the main foundations of the Iranian Civil Code. Based on this deep dependence, the basic and general views governing the Iranian Civil Code, and consequently, many opinions held by Iranian legal scholars, are derived directly from jurisprudential opinions. One significant area shaped by these fundamental views is the definition and treatment of unauthorized contracts (Fudhuli). Shia jurists traditionally consider any contract in which an unauthorized person has dealt the property of the owner as an ‘unauthorized contract,’ which then becomes valid and enforceable upon the owner's permission (Ijazah). This broad interpretation has been adopted as a certain and undeniable affair in the Iranian Civil Code, leading legal scholars to acknowledge this customary definition of unauthorized contracts.
∴ Research Question ∴
The core inquiry of this research seeks to determine: What are the necessary specific conditions, based on relevant narrations and custom, under which an unauthorized contract can be declared valid and enforceable by the owner, thereby challenging the broad traditional view adopted by the Iranian Civil Code?. This investigation attempts to ascertain why certain unauthorized contracts may not be enforceable.
∴ Research Hypothesis ∴
It is hypothesized that the traditional, broad definition of unauthorized contracts accepted by the Iranian Civil Code is incomplete. The hypothesis posits that an unauthorized contract can only be declared valid and enforceable in highly specific situations. These necessary situations are strictly limited to instances where the unauthorized person lacked any possibility to communicate with the owner to obtain permission, acted in good faith with the intention to gain benefit for the owner, and possessed either a deep friendship/tie with the owner or was an agent who acted without trespassing the defined scope of their authority.
∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴
The study employs a descriptive-analytical method to investigate the subject. The framework involves a critical analysis of the traditional opinions held by Shia jurists and Iranian legal scholars. This analysis is conducted by investigating and referencing relevant narrations and prevailing custom (Urf). The objective of this methodological approach is to systematically identify the crucial components and conditional terms of non-authorization and establish a new, restrictive approach to unauthorized contracts.
∴ Results & Discussion ∴
The research results demonstrate that the enforceability of unauthorized contracts is significantly more restricted than traditionally held. The study found that an unauthorized contract can be declared valid and enforceable only in a situation where the unauthorized person did not have any possibility to communicate with the owner to obtain permission. Additionally, three cumulative or alternative conditions must be met: the unauthorized person must make the contract in good faith (Hussn Niyyat) with an intention to gain benefit for the owner, and provided that they have a deep friendship or tie with the owner, or are an agent acting on the owner’s behalf without trespassing the scope of their authority. If the unauthorized person’s action does not align with the owner’s benefit, or if they act solely for their own interests (without good faith), the contract is non-enforceable. The core of the new approach hinges on the components of good faith and the absence of communication possibility, coupled with one of the specific relational criteria.
∴ Conclusion ∴
The research establishes a new, restrictive approach to unauthorized contracts, arguing that the general acceptance of enforceability found in Shia Jurisprudence and the Iranian Civil Code must be curtailed. The ability of the owner to declare the contract valid is highly contingent upon the unauthorized person’s inability to seek permission, their good faith, and a pre-existing tie or relationship of trust (such as agency exceeding authority or deep friendship). This conclusion implies that the Iranian Civil Code should be reformed to limit the applicability of enforceability solely to those specific instances where the unauthorized contract was executed out of necessity and intent to benefit the owner, rather than adopting the customary view which broadly accepts the enforceability of any unauthorized transaction.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)
