Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University:Tehran West Branch, Tehran, Iran Corresponding Author Email: j.niknejad@yahoo.com
2
. L.L.L., Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University: Ghaemshahr Branch, Ghaemshahr, Iran
Abstract
The contract of sale is among the most frequently used agreements in society. In Irsn's legal system and under Imamiyyah jurisprudence, lack of legal parity exists between the rights of the seller and those of the buyer. Due to the proprietary nature of sale, ownership of the subject matter transfers to the buyer immediately upon formation of the contract, enabling the buyer to exercise both legal and material powers of disposition, including subsequent sale to a third party, even if not a portion of the price has been paid. The seller’s recourse to remedies such as the right of retention or the option for rescission due to late payment is limited to cases where the sale is unconditional and no specific deadline for payment has been stipulated. However, in most real-world transactions, payment is not immediate or in cash, which may result in the seller being deprived of his entitlement or facing significant difficulty in its recovery. The seller may be compelled to initiate legal action against the buyer, which—even if resulting in a favorable judgment—may be rendered ineffective due to the buyer’s insolvency or bankruptcy. To address this legal imbalance, parties often incorporate contractual clauses aimed at safeguarding the seller’s position. One such provision is the retention of title clause, under which the seller stipulates that ownership shall not pass to the buyer until the full purchase price is paid. The key legal question arises as to the validity of any conflicting transaction entered into by the seller with regard to the subject matter prior to satisfaction of the condition. A definitive answer to this question requires a clear analysis of the legal nature of the retention of title clause. Three prevailing views exist among jurists: one considers such a clause to render the sale contract suspended, whereby ownership remains with the seller until the condition is fulfilled. Another treats it as a resolutory condition, where title passes upon formation of the contract but the failure to pay terminates the agreement forcibly. Some scholars regard a sale with a reservation of title (retained ownership) as a type of sale in which the subject matter is pledged by the seller. Obviously, in the latter two scenarios, since upon the conclusion of the sale the buyer becomes the owner of the goods, the sale of the aforementioned goods by the seller to a third party after the sale constitutes a case of unauthorized transaction. However, if the sale with a conditional validity—keeping ownership reserved—is accepted, some jurists argue that such sale lacks effect by the seller. The finding of this research is that the sale including the condition of retention of ownership is of a suspended nature, therefore, by the conclusion of this sale, the sold item remains in the seller's ownership, but due to the customer's right to the transaction, the sold item is not unconditional, consequently, a transaction concluded by the seller faces an obstacle due to the fact that the sold item is not unconditional, the said obstacle is the customer's objective right to the sold item, the legal status of a transaction that faces an obstacle is controversial in Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence, most jurists and lawyers do not distinguish between unathourized transaction and contract under duress which are unenforced and transactions that face the obstacle of a third party's right; Some Imami jurists and lawyers have distinguished between unenforced transactions and transactions that face an obstacle. In suspended transactions, such as unathourized transaction and contract under duress, the contract is voidable due to the lack of a part of the necessary requirements, but in transactions facing an obstacle, the contract is not problematic in terms of necessary requirements, rather the necessary tequirement of the contract exists, but the obstacle also exists. Transactions that face obstacles are in the status of a morae’i (considerate contract) from the perspective of this group of jurists and lawyers. A morae’i transaction (considerate contract) is a valid transaction whose survival is at risk of being annulled, so on the contrary, contract has legal effects during the so-called waiting period for the removal of the obstacle (before determining the obligation of the third party’s right), but if the right is exercised by a third party, it is annulled from the same date. On the other hand, another difference between a suspended and a considerate contract (mora’ei transaction) is that a suspended transaction is invalidated if rejected, but a considerate contract (mora’ei transaction) is not invalidated if the transaction is rejected by a third party (the owner of the right), but rather, the problem of the aforementioned contract is completely resolved due to the disappearance of the obstacle. The result of this research is that transactions contradicting the customer’s right in a sale that include a condition for maintaining ownership are in the status of a mora’ei, this sale is properly formed and has legal effects, if the price is settled by the customer, the said sale is annulled from the same date, but if the customer does not settle the price due to the disappearance of the obstacle, the mora’ei contract continues to be valid without any problems.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)