نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 حقوق،واحد اصفهان(خوراسگان)،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،اصفهان،ایران
2 استاد گروه حقوق،دانشگاه شهید بهشتی،تهران،ایران
3 استادیار گروه حقوق،واحد اصفهان(خوراسگان)،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،اصفهان،ایران
4 استادیار گروه حقوق،واحد شهر قدس،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،تهران،ایران
5 استادیار گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی،واحد رامهرمز،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،رامهرمز،ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Paragraph 1 of Article 233 of the Civil Code considers one of the specific conditions for the validity of a condition to be its compatibility with the requirements of the contract. But on the basis of the invalidity of the condition contrary to the requirement of the contract and what the officer is in determining and distinguishing the requirement of the essence from the application, he is silent. Therefore, the ruling is not comprehensive and clear, it is insufficient. This shortcoming has led to differences of opinion among civil rights writers and divisions in jurisprudence. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the author first enumerates and explains the theoretical foundations of the ruling in jurisprudential works, then chooses the elemental theory of contracts from among the interpretations in the criterion of distinguishing the necessity of essence from application. Therefore, any condition that is contrary to one of the general or specific elements of a contract is contrary to the requirements of the nature of the contract.
کلیدواژهها [English]