نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Most of obligations are notably derived from the contracts and torts. Quasi- contracts in their turn are another limited source to create rights and duties. Article 1371 of French civil code defines the quasi-contracts as the solely intentional human acts which produce obligations to another person or reciprocally. Benevolent intervention is one of the quasi-contracts of which British law is not ignorant. There are many authorities and regulations that govern this legal institution. In the European unity field, there is a preliminary plan for the European uniform civil code called: "Draft Common Frame of Reference". Basically no one has any authority to interfere in someone else’s affairs and assets unless he or she has any kind of agency, administration or tutorship. Any other sort of intervention is a kind of usurpation. In some necessitous situations like absence or immaturity of the owner or the master of the affairs, where there is no power to get the owner’s permission and when the peril of loss or damage of the concerned person’s property or health is felt, the intervention benevolently is required and admitted and even admirable. The controversial aspect in this context is the legal basis for this benevolent intervention. Most of the legal systems have chosen the agency theory and justified the effects thereof. One of the consequences that stems from this theory is the capacity of the intervener and his demand for costs incurred. The agency theory is inconsistent with the accepted axioms in Iranian civil law.
کلیدواژهها [English]
الف) فارسی
ب) انگلیسی
10. Beatson,J,QC(1998), Anson’s Law of Contract, 27th edition,Great Britain,Oxford University Press.
11. Burrows, Andrew (2011), The Law of Restitution,3d edition,Great Britain, Oxford University press.
12. Cheshire,Fifoot,Furmstone, Law of contract,(1991), 12th edition, London,Buttterworth
13. Cheshire ,Fifoot, Furmstone(2012), Law of contract,16th, edition,London,Oxford.
14. Makendrick, Ewan (2004),”Taxonomy:Does It matter?”The Comparative law of Unjustified Enrichment,p(627-658),Great Britain, Cambridge University press.
15. Mc Camus,D,John,(1997),”Necessitous intervention:"The altruistic intermeddler and the law of restitution"Ottawa law review, volume11, number2,p.297-336
16. Samuels,Geoffrey (2001), Law of Obligation and Legal Remedies, 2d edition, Great Britain,Cavendish publishing.
17. Stewart,W,J & Burgess Robert,(2001), Collins Law Dictionary,2d edition,UK,Perfect Bound.
18. Tettenborn,Andrew,(2002), Law of restitution in England and Ireland,3d edition,Great Britain,Cavendish publishing.
19. Virgo, Graham(1999), The Principles of The Law of Restitution,1st published,GreatBritain,Oxford University Press
20. Von Bar,Christian,Clive,Eric,(2009),Principles,Definitions and model Rules of European private Law(DCFR),Munich, Sellier.
ج) فرانسه
21. Buffelan-Lanore,Yvainet Larribau-Terneyre,Virgine (2010), Droit Civil, Les Obligations,12e édition, Paris,Sirey.
22. Flour,Jacques et Aubert,Jean-Luc,Savaux,Éric (2011), Droit Civil, Les Obligations,tome2,14 éme édition,Paris,Sirey
23. Mainguy,Daniel,(2008), Contrats spésiaux,6e édition,Paris,Dalloz.
24. Sériaux,Alain(1992), Droit Civil,Droit des Obligations,2e édition,Paris, Presse Universitaires de France.
)
