بررسی تطبیقی وضعیت معامله وکیل برای موکل ناشناس در حقوق ایران و انگلیس

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه اصفهان

2 عضو هیئت علمی گروه حقوق دانشگاه اصفهان

چکیده

ماده 196 قانون مدنی اثبات انجام معامله برای غیر را حتی پس از انعقاد ممکن دانسته و در صورت اثبات، معامله را برای غیر محسوب می کند. علی رغم اطلاق لفظ «معامله کننده»، اغلب حقوقدانان ماده را ناظر به معاملات وکیل برای موکل ناشناس می دانند. بر این مبنی ایشان حکم ماده را ناعادلانه خوانده و معتقدند که در این صورت معامل ممکن است ناخواسته با شخصی ناشناس به عنوان طرف قرارداد مواجه شود. برخی دیگر اما این حکم را مطابق قاعده دانسته و تنها قید آن را ماده 201 می دانند. نگارندگان این مقاله معتقدند موضوع ماده اعم از معاملات وکیل و شخص فضولی بوده و حکم آن معطوف به ماده 197 قانون مدنی می باشد. به این ترتیب اگر مورد عقد، عین متعلق به دیگری باشد، اصولاً نیازی به اثبات قصد وکالت نبوده و اثبات آن، تنها سبب خروج معامله از موضوع فضولی و موجب پایبندی مالک به عقد است. از سوی دیگر چنانچه مورد معامله فعل متعاملین باشد، اثبات قصد وکالت یا فضولی، به دلیل عدم تخاطب، بی فایده بوده و عقد محکوم به بطلان است. بنابراین حکم ماده 196 را باید در جهت حمایت از معامل تفسیر کرد و نه شخص ناشناس. مطالعه تطبیقی این احکام با حقوق انگلستان، با توجه به تشابه آنها می تواند در کاهش اصطکاک اطلاق ماده 196 با عدالت معاوضی و نظم عمومی مفید باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Study of the Status of an Agent's Transaction for an Undisclosed Client in Iran and England’s Laws

نویسندگان [English]

  • hamed khubyari 1
  • mohammad sadegh tabatabaei 2
1 Ph.D. Student, private law, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran.
2 department of law university of isfahan
چکیده [English]

Article 196 of the civil law finds it feasible to prove transaction performance for a third party even after the contract conclusion and, in case of being proved, the transaction is considered to have been performed for a third person. Despite the purport understood from the term “transacting party”, the majority of the jurists realize the foresaid article as being indicative of transactions by an agent for an Undisclosed client. The present article’s authors are of the belief that the subject of the article includes transactions by an agent and a rouge and its rulings refer to the article 197 of the civil law. This way, if the contract subject is an objective and specific property belonging to another person, there would be essentially no need for proving the agency contract’s intention and its justification only causes the transaction to be excluded from unauthorized contracts and elicits the owner’s bound to the contract. On the other hand, if the transaction subject is an action to be done by the transacting parties, proving of the agency or unauthorized contract’s intention would be useless due to being non-attributable and the contract is condemned to invalidation. Thus, the rulings of the article 196 should be interpreted for supporting the transacting party and not the Undisclosed person. The comparative study of these verdicts in Iran and England’s laws can assist the reduction of conflict between the purports of the article 196 and the commutative justice and public order considering their similarities.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Article 196 of the civil law
  • Undisclosed client
  • Assignment to the owner
  • Mistake about contracting party

مراجع

Persian Books
Aghelinejad, Mohammad Amin, General Rules of Contractual Obligation, Tehran: Majd, 1395.
Ansari, Masoud, Private Law Encyclopedia, Tehran: Mihrab e’ Fekr, 1384.
Bahrami Ahmadi, Hamid, The law of Obligations and Contracts, Tehran: Imam Sadiq University, 1390.
Bayat,Farhad, Shirin Bayat, The Comprehensive Commentary on the Civil Code, Tehran: Arshad, 1395.
Bigdeli, Saeed, Hosseini Almousavi, Mojtaba, Civil Code Commentary, Tehran: Mehrsa, 1395.
Eftekhari, Javad, Generals of Contracts and Obligation’s Law, Tehran: Mizan, 1382.
Emami, hasan, Civil law, Tehran: Islamiyyah Publication, 1394.
Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Commentary on Civil Code, Tehran: Ganje Danesh, 1391.
Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Encyclopedia of Civil and Commercial Law, Tehran: Ganje Danesh, 1388.
Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Mabsoot: Dictionary Terms of Law, Tehran: Ganje Danesh, 1388.
Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Property Law, Tehran: Ganje Danesh, 1388.
Katouzian, Naser, General Principles of Contracts, Tehran: Enteshar stock company, 1393.
Katouzian, Naser, General Principles of Contracts, Tehran: Mizan, 1383.
Katouzian, Naser, Named Contracts, Tehran: Enteshar stock company, 1389.
Katouzian, Naser, Property and Ownership, Tehran: Mizan, 1386.
Khademi Arasteh, Mohammad Hossein, Effects of Mistake in Legal Actions, Tehran: Khorsandy, 1396.
Khalijian, Fariba, Effective Mistakes in Contracts, Tehran: Atta, 1396.
Makarem Shirazi, Naser, al-Qawaed al-Fiqhiyye, translates by Mohammad Javad Nouri Hamadani, Qom: Ali ibn abi Taleb, 1394.
Mohseni, Saeed, Mistake in the Party to the Contract with, Tehran: Imam Sadiq University, 1390.
Nematollahi, Esmail, The Object and Subject of Contract, Tehran: Research Institute of Hawzeh and University, 1393.
Qanavati, Jalil, Study of Offer and Acceptance, Qom: Boostan e’ Ketab, 1383.
Safaei, Hossein, General Principles of Contracts, Tehran: Mizan, 1397.
Sanhuri, Abd al Razzag Ahmad, Al-Waseet Fi Sharh Al-Kanoon Al-Madani Aljadeed, translated by Hosseingholi Hosseini Nejad, Tehran: Hoqooqdan, 1387.
Setoudeh, Hasan, Commercial Law, Tehran: Dadgostar, 1395
Shahidi, Mehdi, Forming Contracts and Obligations, Tehran: Majd, 1392.
Shahidi, Mehdi, Principles of Contracts and Obligations, Tehran: Majd, 1391.
Shiravi, Abdolhossein, Contract Law, Tehran: Samt, 1396
Zakaria, Rasouli, Description of the Civil Law in the Current Legal Procedure, Tehran: Ava, 1396.
Zakeri, Reza, Mistake and its Effects on Contracts, Tabriz: Forouzesh, 1390.
Persian Articles
Bariklou, Alireza, Mediator Agency, Fiqh and Usul, Vol 43, Spring and Summer 1390, No 86, 73-98.
Khubyari, Hamed, The study of the difference between corporeal, benefit and profit from perspective of Imamiah jurisprudence and the Iranian law, Studies of Islamic jurisprudence and Basics of Law, Vol 12, Fall and Winter 2019, No 38, 111-133.
Mohseni, Saeed, Mistake in the Party to the Contract with, Islamic Law Researches, Spring and Summer 1386, No 25, 99-140.
Nematollahi, Esmail, The Impact of Obligation to Assignment of Ownership (Tamlīk) in Imāmī Jurisprudence and Iranian Law, Fiqh and Usul, Summer 1391, Vol 89, p 181-200.
Safai, Hossein, Mohammad Isa Tafrashi and Jalil Qanavati, Agency Analysis, Resultiny from Ratification in English, Iranian and Islamic Law, Comparative Law Researches, Vol 5, Winter 1380, No 4, 79-104.
Arabic Books
Ansari, Morteza, al-Makasib, Qom: Hadi Institute, 1419.
Hakim, Muhsin, Mostamsek al-Urvatol Wusqa, Beirut: Darahya' Altoras al-Arabia, UD.
Hasan ibn Yusuf, Hilli, Tazkira-tul- foqahaa, Qom: Al al-Bait (AS) L-ehya al-Turath, 1416.
Hashemi Shahroudi, Mahmoud, Qira’at Fiqhiya al-Moaser fi Ibadat al-Moamelat, Qom: Dairatul-Maarif fiqh al-Islami, 1423.
Khoei, Abu al-Qasim, Misbah al-Fiqahe, Qom: Davari, UD.
Khomeini, Ruhollah, Kitab al-Bei, written by Mohammad Hasan Ghadiri, Tehran: tanzim va nashr-e asar-e Imam Khomeini, 1418.
Moravej Jazaeri, Mohammad Ja'far, Hoda al-Talib Fi Sharh al-Makasib, Qom: Dar al-Kitab Institution, 1416.
Naʾini, Muhammad Hossain, Munyat al-Talib Fi Hashiyat al-Makasib, Written by Musa Najafi Khansari, Tehran: Maktib al-Mohammadiyah, 1373.
Najafi, Mohammad hasan, Jawaher al-Kalam, Beirut: Darahya' Altoras al-Arabia, 1981.
Rohani, Mohammad Sadeq, Minhaj al-Fiqahe, Qom: maktab al-elmiyyah, 1418.
Sobhani, Ja'far, Principles of Islamic jurisprudence, Qom: Imam Sadiq Institution, 1430.
Tabatabei Yazdi, Mohammad Kazem, Hashia al-Makaseb, Qom: Ismaeilian, 1370.
English Books
Anson, William Reynell, S. Burrows, Andrew, J. Beatson, John, Cartwright, Anson's Law of Contract, New York: Oxford University Press, 29th ed, 2010.
Davies S, P, JC Smith's the Law of Contract, 1st Ed, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Huffcut, E. Elements of the Law of Agency, 1895 First Ed, Washington D.C: Beard Books, 1999.
Koffman, Laurence, Elizabeth Macdonald, The Law of Contract, 6th Ed, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 302.
Markesinis S, B. An Outline of the Law of Agency, 4th Ed, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Samuel Williston, Richard D. Currier, and Richard W. Hill, Commercial Law, 1921 First Ed, Auckland, The Floating Press, 2013.
Thomas S. R, A comparative analysis of the rule of nemo dat quod non habet and its exceptions in the law of England and Wales and the law of the United States of America, 1st Ed, Manchester, University of Manchester, 2008.
English Articles
Ahdash, Mohamed, “The effect of Mistake on Contractual Relations under English and Islamic Law; A comparative overview”, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, 34, 2004
Brady Jr, “When One of Two Innocent Parties Must Suffer by the Act of a Third”, Washington University Law Review, 9, 1924.
Dalley, P. “A Theory of Agency Law”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 72, 2011.
Rochvarg, A. Ratification and Undisclosed Principals, McGill Law Journal, 34, 1989.
Stickley. P, A, When Dr Jekyll Turns out to be Mr Hyde – The Undisclosed Principal to a Land Contract and Section 52, Trade Practices Law Journal, 6, 1998.
Acts
Factors Act 1892.
Hire-Purchase Act 1964.
Sale of Goods Act 1979.
Cases
Black v Smallwood (1966) 117 CLR 52.
Cf Bondina v Rollaway Shower Blinds Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 517. See also Companies Act 2006, s 83.
Cundy v Lindsay (1877–78) LR 3 App Cas 459.
Fraser V Equatorial Shipping Co Ltd [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep 103.
Lush J. in Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153.
Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243.
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62.
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No 2) [2002] UKHL 43, [2003] 1 AC 959.
Teheran-Europe Co Ltd v ST Belton (Tractors) Ltd [1968] 2 QB 545, 558.
 

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 05 تیر 1398
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 12 آذر 1398
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 17 دی 1398

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار