تحلیل انتقادی رأی وحدت رویه شماره 810- 4/ 3/ 1400 هیئت عمومی دیوان عالی کشور (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
جواز یا منع تصرفات ناقل مشتری در مبیع در مدت خیار بایع، ازجمله موضوع های کاربردی است که پیوسته مورد بحث و سؤال بوده است. اختلاف دیدگاه اندیشمندان موجب بروز این پرسش شده است که چنانچه خریدار در مدت خیار نسبت به انتقال مبیع به ثالث کند، تکلیف چیست؟ هیئت عمومی دیوان عالی کشور با صدور رأی وحدت رویه شماره 810- 4/ 3/ 1400 از دامنه ابهام های گذشته نکاسته و چنین تصرفاتی را جایز ندانسته است. این نوشتار ضمن تبیین سابقه فقهی موضوع، این رأی را با مفاد قانون مدنی انطباق داده و در تعیین قلمرو اعمال رأی به این نتیجه رسیده است که رأی یادشده انطباق کاملی با قانون مدنی ندارد. ازاین رو پیشنهاد شده است تا در مقام عمل، مفاد رأی تنها در موضوع هایی جریان یابد که عیناً با رویداد منتهی به صدور رأی منطبق باشد و در سایر قضایا به عموم مواد قانون مدنی عمل شود؛ بنابراین رأی صرفاً باید در بیع شرط یا در مواردی که عدم تصرفات ناقل بر مشتری شرط شده است، اعمال شود. روش پژوهش در این مطالعه، تحلیلی – کتابخانه ای است.Revisiting and Elaborating upon the Impact and Scope of Iran Supreme Court Verdict No. 810 \3\4\1400
The examination of Verdict No. 810 \3\4\1400 issued by the general board of the Supreme Court of Iran holds significant weight in legal discourse, particularly concerning the transfer of property and subsequent transactions. This verdict stipulates that in cases where a property is sold and subsequently transferred to a third party, upon the termination of the initial transaction, the object of the transaction must be reverted to the original owner, despite the existence of an irrevocable contract.However, upon detailed scrutiny, it becomes apparent that the prevailing opinion among most judges within the Iran Supreme Court might be flawed. There's a critical oversight observed among certain judges who fail to discern between conditions that prohibit the backing out of an arrangement and those that allow termination by both parties within a specific period.Moreover, the rationale behind reverting the property to the first owner is seemingly one-sided. While the first owner anticipated receiving consideration due to an optional condition, they seem to overlook the detriments imposed on the seller. Consequently, holding the subsequent buyer accountable for an optional condition, knowingly concealed during the transaction, appears unjust. Even if the property has undergone changes or its value increased, disregarding the legal causes behind the buyer's ownership seems unfair and contradicts the essence of the judicial system's philosophy.To address this discrepancy, a logical and legally sound solution must be sought. A pertinent query emerges: should this verdict extend its impact to individuals who have purchased the property during a valid contract? Furthermore, an exploration into the potential hurdles faced by the generalization of this issued verdict becomes imperative. Additionally, it's crucial to determine a solution that safeguards the buyer in good faith and reallocates responsibility to the offender, thereby averting undue detriments.Within Iran's civil law system, consent stands as a fundamental pillar validating a contract. Consequently, the transfer of property is perceived as a presumption wasting, an assumption lawmakers make about wastage that lacks validity. Consequently, when a property is transferred via a valid contract and the preceding contract terminates due to any cause, it should be directed to the substitute owner as the property is now subjected to another right. Returning it to the former owner lacks a legal and logical foundation.The issued verdict signifies an exceptional ruling that demands a circumscribed interpretation and application. Judges should interpret this verdict as a legal rule restricted to events mirroring the specific circumstances of the case at hand.The research findings indicate that the enforceability of the Supreme Court's verdict is limited to cases such as chattel mortgages, scenarios where the buyer's practical transferable legal activity is impermissible, or contracts where the buyer possesses adequate knowledge or couldn't have been unaware of an optional condition's existence.Furthermore, the concept of a unanimous verdict is regarded as an exceptional institution, contradicting established judicial principles. To curtail such interventions, a meticulous examination of the issued verdict's causative factors leading to interpretative disparities is essential.In common law countries, judges, when referring to judicial precedents, must align the subject matters of the case with the event prompting the issuance of the previous verdict. Hence, the case's topic supersedes the public board's verdict since the latter fails to provide a genuine cause for its decision-making process. This ambiguity allows individual judges to craft their interpretations, potentially resulting in unfair outcomes.Additionally, courts are prohibited from issuing summary judgments. The resolution of disputes necessitates a case-by-case analysis, considering personal and subject-specific characteristics.In the realm of civil law, opinions of eminent jurisprudents significantly shape its components. Silence or doubt often prompts reference to arguments enjoying greater support among jurists, forming the intellectual or historical basis of codified laws. Deviating from these established opinions is uncommon, as they are deemed integral to the law's spirit, grounded in custom, reason, and judicial procedure.
تبلیغات
