مقایسة عقد حواله با تبدیل تعهد و انتقال دین و طلب

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه فقه و حقوق اسلامی، واحد علوم تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

2 دانش آموخته دکتری فقه و حوق اسلامی، واحد علوم تحقیقات، تهران، ایران

چکیده

تبدیل تعهد یکی از موارد سقوط تعهدات است که در مقایسه با سایر موارد سقوط تعهدات، کمتر
مورد بحث و تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفته است و دلیل این امر نیز شاید عدم پیش بینی عنوان تبدیل
تعهد در فقه و اقتباس آن از حقوق غرب باشد. حقوق اسلام اگر چه نهادهایی تحت عناوین تبدیل
تعهد و انتقال دین و طلب را مطرح ننموده است، ولی از همان ابتدا، انتقال تعهد را مابین زندگان
بدون هیچ گونه مشکلی پذیرفته و بر جنبة مادی آن نسبت به جنبة شخصی بیشتر ارزش قائل
گردیده است و ماهیت و محتوی این نهادها را در قالب نهادهای حقوقی دیگر و با عناوین حقوقی
مختلف از جمله وفای به غیر جنس دین، ضمان و حواله بیان کرده است. اما حواله نهاد حقوقی است
که ضمن داشتن سابقة فقهی طولانی، کاملاً منطبق بر تبدیل تعهد به اعتبار تبدیل داین است. چه
در حواله، توافق محیل و محال را شرط دانسته و رضایت محالٌ علیه را از ارکان عقد به شمار نیاوریم
و چه هر سه (محیل، محال، محالٌ علیه) را جزء ارکان حواله تلقی کنیم و رضایت هر سه را شرط
بدانیم

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Survey of the Inclusiveness of the Causes of Tortious Liability in Jurisprudence

نویسندگان [English]

  • Alireza Feyz 1
  • Javad Vahedi zade 2
چکیده [English]

Revisiting the causes and circumstances of tortious liability and in a
jurisprudential approach, the present article studies their
inclusiveness and comprehensiveness. It is quite natural that the title
of “causes of liability “ makes the logical reader expect their
comprehensiveness. Basically, lack of comprehensiveness may
leave a serious harm to a methodological research. Causes of
liability in fact are circumstances bringing liability based on textual
proofs, rational proofs , and common usages of the reasonable. For
instance, liability in the “rule of prior possession” is based on unjust
possession, and in the two rules of destruction and causation are
based on imposing unjust damages directly or indirectly. The
approach taken in this article may rely on the views of certain great
jurisprudents. For example, discussing the rule of prior possession,
some have explicitly stated that most of the regulations of liability
are based on the prevailing custom. Thus there is no solution but in
custom. These regulations are also attributed to the divine law giver
due to his silence toward them. Some others have asserted that the
rule of destruction is not only a rule in divine law, but it is a rational
rule and one based on the practices of the reasonable. In view of the
structure of this discussion and the above mentioned views, the
researcher mostly adopts either of the following methods.
a) He gives semantic expansion to the causes of liability with their
required evidence thus including all cases bringing liability
regardless of their proofs.
b) In addition to adopted causes, the researcher raises new ones to
cover those not supported with previous causes. This liability relies
on the verse of aggression, and rule of prohibition of detriment. The
author has taken here the first method. Indicating that the textual
and traditional evidence of the causes especially the rule of prior
possession are seriously argued and criticized by some
jurisprudents, the author has considered the common usages of the
reasonable and rational dictate as the most important and most
convincing jurisprudential evidence for causes od liability.
Therefore the semantic expansion would not face with the problem
of expansion in the signification of textual proof. Relying on nontextual
proofs in a second step, the author has revisited the causes of
liability trying to give a semantic expansion in the above mentioned
causes covering all causes of liability.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • rule of prior possession
  • destruction
  • causation
  • aggression
  • unjust tortious act