Comparative study of Enforcement of Security Interest in Movable Property in Uniform Commercial Code of USA and Iranian Law

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 دانشیار دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی

2 law, faculty of law, shahid beheshti university, tehran, iran

10.29252/jlr.2021.184782.1568

Abstract

Abstract
Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code of USA is recognized as a model for other legal systems by anticipating developed regulations on the security interest in movable property. One of the essential features of this article is the rules on the enforcement of the security interest and the priority of the holders of rights in a same collateral. On this basis, if debtor defaulted, the beneficiary of the collateral may personally, without interference by the court or other official body, enforce the security interest and repossess collateral to foreclosure or sell it as consideration of the debt or part of it. Performance of the conditions, such as non breach of peace, the reasonable conditions of transfer and foreclosure, is mandatory and the violation is warrantable. In relation to the priority of holders of security interest, a creditor who has perfected and registered his right prior to others, regardless date of conclusion of the security agreement. In Iranian law, action to official authorities is only way of enforcing security interest in movable property. Priority exercise on the basis of the precedence or delay of the date of conclusion of the security agreement. due to the lack of a filling system, the establishment of unified systems for registration of security interest in movable property, priority over time and granting of the right of self enforcement the security interest to the beneficiaries by considering the responsibility is offered, in order to develop the security in the movable property and financing.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Book
9- Alejandro,M.Garro, Security Investment in Civil law Countries : Some Technical and Practical Aspects Involving security Interests in Foreign –Based Movable Assets, Washington, University of Washington Law Library, 1994.
10- Carter, Carolyn L & Sheldon,Jonathan & Rao, John, Repossessions- the Consumer Credit and Sales Legal Practice Series, 2ed, Boston, National Consumers Law Centre, 2005.
11- Kieninger, Eva-Maria, Security Rights in Movable Property in European Private Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
12- Lohansoon, Erica, Property Rights in lnvestment Securities and the Doctrine of Specificity, Berlin, Springer,Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
13- Rusch, Linda J, Sepinuck, Stephen L, Problems and Material on Secured Transactions, Minnesota, Thomson west, 2006.
14- Mc Cormack ,Gerard, secured Credit under English and American law, Cambridge, Cambridge studies in corporate law, 2004.
15- Tajti, Tibor, Comparative Secured Transaction law, Budapest, Akademiai Kiado, 2002.
16- Warren, William D. & Walt, Steven D, Secured Transactions in Personal Property, 7 ed, Foundation press, 2007.
17- White, James & Summers, Robert, Principles of Security Transactions, Minnesota, Thomson West, 2007.
-Article
18- Barkley, Clark, “Revised Article9 of the UCC: Scope, Perfection, Priorities and Default”, North Carolina Banking Institute, Vol4, 2000: pp.129-182.
19- Frisch, David,”the Recent Amendments of Ucc Article Problem and Solutions”, University of Richmond Law Review, Vol.45, 2011: pp.1009-1035.
20- Harris, Steven L & Mooney, Charles W, “Filling and Enforcement under Revised Article 9”, the Business Lawyer, Vol54, 1999: pp.1965-1984.
21- gilmore,Grant, “Article9: what it does for the past”, Louisiana law Review,vol.xxvi, 1966: pp.285-299.
22- Nwogu, Obinna Tochi, Secured Transactions Laws of Nigeria and Cameroon Through the Lens of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States of America, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of S.J.D. in International Business Law, Submitted to Central European University, 2011.
23- Rapson, Donald J, “Default and Enforcement of Security interests under Revised Article 9”, Chicago – Kent Law Review, Vol 74:893, 1999.
24- T.Harris, Charles & T.Burgess, William,”Perfection and Enforcement of Security Interests under Article 9” ,Mchigan Bar Journal, Vol70, 1991: pp. 305-309.
25- Weise, Steven O, “Ucc Article9: Personal Property Secured Transactions”, American Bar Associations, vol.61, 2006: pp. 1617-1631.
-Rule
26- The American Law Institute and National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law, Official Text and Comments, Uniform Commercial Code, 2014.
Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 24, Issue 95 - Serial Number 95
November 2021
Pages 159-182

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 13 March 2020
  • Revise Date: 22 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 01 June 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics