Document Type : Review Article
Authors
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Law, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.
2
PhD Student in Private Law, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Law, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.
3
PhD Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.
Abstract
∴ Introduction ∴
The conceptual distinction between "person" and "personality" is fundamental to the legal framework governing contracts and other legal acts. These terms, while seemingly straightforward, are fraught with complexity, particularly when errors in their application influence the legal status of such acts. The Iranian Civil Code, like its French predecessor, employs these terms without fully delineating their boundaries, leading to potential ambiguities in legal interpretations and outcomes. Article 201 of the Iranian Civil Code, derived from Article 1110 of the French Civil Code, addresses the issue of errors in the identity of contracting parties but does not adequately clarify the distinction between "person" and "personality." This ambiguity can lead to significant legal consequences when errors arise in these concepts during the formation of contracts and other legal transactions.
This research seeks to clarify these concepts and explore their implications within the Islamic legal system and Iranian civil law. By doing so, it aims to fill a critical gap in legal doctrine, offering a more nuanced understanding of how errors in the identity or characteristics of a contracting party can impact the validity and enforceability of legal acts.
∴ Research Question ∴
The primary research question guiding this study is: What impact do errors in the concept of "person" and "personality" have on the status of legal acts within the Islamic legal system and Iranian civil law?
This overarching question is further broken down into the following sub-questions:
What are the precise definitions of "person" and "personality" within the context of legal acts?
How do these concepts differ, and what are the implications of differentiating them in legal practice?
What are the specific legal consequences of errors in the person or personality of a contracting party?
∴ Research Hypothesis ∴
The hypothesis of this study is that errors in the concepts of "person" and "personality" have distinct and significant impacts on the validity and status of legal acts, and that these impacts vary depending on whether the error pertains to the identity of the contracting party or their characteristics (personality).
It is posited that:
Errors in "person," where the wrong individual is involved in the contract, can lead to the nullification or significant alteration of the legal act.
Errors in "personality," where the characteristics of the correct individual are misunderstood or misrepresented, may not necessarily nullify the legal act but can lead to renegotiation, modification, or compensation, depending on the legal system's treatment of such errors.
∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴
The research adopts a doctrinal legal methodology, with a comparative approach to examine how different legal systems address errors in the concepts of "person" and "personality." The study primarily focuses on the Islamic legal system, Iranian civil law, and French civil law, given the direct influence of French legal doctrine on the Iranian Civil Code.
∴ Results & Discussion ∴
The research provides a detailed comparative analysis of the legal implications of errors in the concepts of "person" and "personality" within the contexts of Islamic jurisprudence, Iranian civil law, and French civil law. Through this analysis, the study highlights differences in how these errors are treated across various legal systems and the resultant effects on the validity and status of legal acts.
One of the primary findings of the research is the critical distinction between "person" and "personality" in legal transactions. Errors in identifying the "person"—that is, the specific human being involved in a contract—can lead to the complete invalidation of the contract. This is particularly significant in contracts where the identity of the contracting party is central to the agreement, such as in marriage contracts or partnerships. For instance, in a marriage contract, an "error in person" results in the contract being void because the identity of the spouse is fundamental to the formation of the marriage. Similarly, in partnerships, where the partners' identities are essential, an error in person can invalidate the partnership contract, particularly before the partnership's legal personality is established.
Conversely, an "error in personality" involves a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the characteristics of a person who is correctly identified. The research identifies two scenarios where an error in personality may occur: first, when the personality merely encourages the transaction, and second, when it plays an active role in forming the contractual will. In cases where the personality of the contracting party influences the contractual will, the contract may be subject to rescission or nullification if the characteristic in question is absent. However, in situations where personality merely encourages the transaction without being a condition for consent, such errors generally do not affect the contract's validity.
The discussion also delves into specific types of legal acts, examining how errors in person and personality affect different types of contracts:
Contracts Without Profit Motive [Mosamehi]: In contracts where the aim is not to gain profit but to fulfill an obligation or provide a benefit—such as gifts, pledges, and charity—the identity of the parties is crucial. An error in either the person or personality of the contracting party can lead to the invalidity of the contract, as the focus in these contracts is on the specific individual, not on maximizing benefit or advantage.
Partnerships: In partnership contracts, the error's impact varies depending on whether the legal personality of the partnership has been established. Before the partnership's legal personality is formed, an error in the person or personality of the partners generally results in the contract's invalidity. However, once the partnership's legal personality is established, the contract's invalidity becomes relative, protecting the rights of third parties and upholding the contract's stability.
Marriage Contracts [Nikah]: A clear distinction is made between errors in person and personality in marriage contracts. An error in person invalidates the marriage contract due to the centrality of the spouse's identity. However, an error in personality does not necessarily void the contract but may grant the aggrieved party the right of rescission, balancing the need for family stability with the principle of contractual fairness.
Discharge [Ibra’]: In discharge, both errors in person and personality lead to the invalidity, as the identity of the discharged party is essential.
Furthermore, the research discusses the implications of errors concerning third parties, particularly in contracts involving obligations benefiting a third party. In such cases, an error in the identity or personality of the third party does not invalidate the underlying contract but may necessitate fulfilling obligations towards the promisee to prevent unjust enrichment.
∴ Conclusion ∴
This review underscores the importance of clearly distinguishing between the concepts of "person" and "personality" in legal theory and practice. The findings reveal that errors in these concepts can have significant implications for the validity and enforceability of legal acts, particularly in contracts where the identity or characteristics of the parties are central to the agreement.
By examining these issues through a comparative lens, the research contributes to a deeper understanding of the legal nuances in Islamic jurisprudence, the Iranian civil law, and the French civil law. The study highlights the need for legal systems to clearly define and differentiate these concepts to prevent ambiguities and ensure that legal acts are adjudicated fairly and consistently. The findings also suggest that legal practitioners and lawmakers should be aware of the potential consequences of errors in person and personality, particularly in complex contracts involving multiple parties or significant personal relationships.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)