بررسی انتقادی «اشتباه» در حقوق مدنی ایران، بر اساس نظریه مشترک لفظی بودن «اشتباه» بین نظام حقوقی فرانسه و فقه امامیه

∴ Introduction
The concept of "mistake" in contractual agreements is a critical point of consideration within various legal systems, each offering distinct approaches to its resolution. This paper focuses on the nature of "mistake" as addressed in Iranian civil law, highlighting the complexities arising from the amalgamation of concepts derived from both the French legal system and Imamiya jurisprudence. The primary aim is to unravel the ambiguities and interpretive challenges presented by the current legal provisions in Iran concerning mistakes in contracts. These challenges are attributed to the convergence of two distinct legal philosophies, each with its unique terminological and conceptual understandings of "mistake." Through a comparative analysis, this study seeks to elucidate the semantic and judicial confusions, proposing pathways towards a more coherent legal interpretation or possible legislative reformations to mitigate these ambiguities.
∴ Research Question
The central inquiry of this research revolves around the following question: how does the conflation of the lexical and conceptual frameworks of "mistake" from both the French legal system and Islamic law contribute to the ambiguities and interpretive challenges within Iranian civil law, and what reforms or interpretations could enhance the coherence of legal provisions regarding mistakes in contracts?
∴ Research Hypothesis
This study proposes two hypotheses: Firstly, the provisions regarding "mistake" in Iranian civil code are inherently ambiguous, leading to significant interpretive challenges. This ambiguity is largely due to the dualistic incorporation of "mistake" as understood in both French legal terminology and Imamiya jurisprudence, without a clear distinction or integration strategy. Secondly, the root of these controversies and ambiguities lies in the failure to acknowledge and address the "common lexical" nature of "mistake" between these two systems, resulting in semantic and judicial inconsistencies that fundamentally hinder the adjudication process regarding contract mistakes in Iranian law.
∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable
The research methodology employed in this study is primarily library-documentary, involving an extensive review of existing literature, legal documents, and previous research findings. The comparative analysis framework is pivotal to understanding the juxtaposition of the French legal system's and Imamiya jurisprudence's interpretations of "mistake." This approach facilitates the identification of similarities, differences, and theoretical advantages, providing a comprehensive understanding of how these divergent perspectives contribute to the current legal ambiguities in Iran. The analysis extends to recent amendments in the 2016 French civil code, offering updated insights that previous studies have overlooked. Through this methodological lens, the paper delves into the conceptual-terminological conflict that underpins the ambiguities in Iranian civil law, presenting novel arguments and explanations to address these challenges.
∴ Results & Discussion
The analysis conducted in this study reveals the ambiguities present within the Iranian civil law concerning the concept of "mistake" in transactions. This issue primarily stems from the amalgamation of the French legal doctrine's interpretation of mistake and the Imamiya jurisprudence's approach, both of which have historically influenced Iranian legal systems but offer differing perspectives on the nature and implications of mistakes in contractual agreements.
     From the French legal doctrine, the categorization of mistakes into errors that lead to a defect in will, defect in consent, and ineffective mistakes, with their corresponding legal consequences (absolute nullity, relative nullity, and validity, respectively), has been a cornerstone in understanding and adjudicating contracts. The 2016 reforms in the French civil code, which sought to align more closely with the Roman tradition, underscored a significant shift by placing all mistakes under the umbrella of relative nullity, thereby prioritizing the preservation of contracts unless a significant defect in consent is proven.
     Contrastingly, Islamic law distinguishes mistakes that lead to a defect in will, resulting in the nullity of the contract, from those constituting a defect in consent, which merely give rise to the right of annulment. This distinction is crucial as it underscores a more nuanced approach to handling mistakes, recognizing the varying degrees of impact a mistake can have on the contractual agreement's validity.
     The integration of these diverse perspectives into Iranian civil code, particularly through the borrowing of terms and concepts, has led to a situation where the provisions related to "mistake" are fraught with ambiguity and inconsistency. This is evident in the legislative texts, where French-influenced (articles 199 to 201) coexist with those drawing from Imamiya jurisprudence (articles 353, 762, 1070, etc.), without a clear distinction or harmonization of the underlying principles.
     This study's findings underscore the critical need for a comprehensive review and revision of the Iranian civil law's provisions on mistake. The semantic and judicial conflicts that arise from the current framework do not merely represent an academic concern but have real-world implications for the interpretation and enforcement of contracts. The lack of clarity and consistency undermines the predictability and security that are fundamental to contractual relations, posing significant challenges for both domestic and international legal transactions involving Iranian law.
∴ Conclusion
The investigation into the provisions related to "mistake" within the Iranian civil law highlights a critical area of ambiguity and contention, stemming from the confluence of French legal doctrine and Imamiya jurisprudence. This study proposes that the root cause of these disputes lies in the failure to clearly distinguish and harmonize the concepts of mistake as understood in these two influential legal traditions.
     To address this issue, this paper recommends a theoretical and practical overhaul of the relevant provisions. Theoretically, adopting a jurisprudential approach to categorize mistakes into three distinct types—defect in will, defect in consent, and ineffective mistakes—with corresponding legal consequences, offers a pathway to clarity. This approach would align the legal framework with the nuanced understanding of mistake in Imamiya jurisprudence while providing a clear, structured basis for adjudication.
     Practically, for an interim solution, a more precise interpretation of "the subject matter itself of the transaction" in Iranian civil code articles 199 and 200 is advocated. This interpretation aims to reconcile the current provisions with the practical realities of contract law, ensuring that defects in consent related to the characteristics of the subject matter lead to voidability rather than nullity, thus preserving the integrity of contractual agreements where possible.
     Ultimately, the resolution of the ambiguities surrounding the concept of "mistake" in Iranian civil code requires a balanced integration of jurisprudential tradition and contemporary legal principles. By embracing a more defined and harmonized approach, Iranian law can enhance the predictability, fairness, and effectiveness of its contract law provisions, thereby fostering a more stable and trustworthy legal environment for both domestic and international parties.