Payment order in Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) as a negotiable instrument: A comparative study

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Law Faculty, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistante Professor, Gonbad-Kavous University, Gonbad-Kavous, Iran

Abstract

Payment order in EFT can be a negotiable instrument in two ways; it can be an instrument based on custom and regulation meaning that whether it should be considered as new instrument or be incorporated in one of the current instruments. In light of Iranian legal system and against Common law, it is not acceptable that a new negotiable instrument be created by custom because some characteristics of these instruments are opposed to the general rules or third party rights while Acts or regulations can only do it. Given the second situation, creating a new instrument by regulation must be done by taking a special name, stating its conditions, characteristics and results. Although the related regulations like UCC or By-law for issuing a Payment Order and Fund Transfer have tried to mention these requirements notwithstanding, under Common Law no custom or rule confers the character of negotiability to payment order and therefore we cannot consider it as a new negotiable instrument. On the other hand, in Iranian law payment order is a special instrument having conditions and results in the light of the given By-law. Therefore, the obligation created by this instrument is definite and after having issued and accepted by debtor who is bank, the bankd is oblige to perform. This in turn, creates this principle in our mind: unacceptable defense principle. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore some bad consequences of this idea that led us to reject this framework for payment order.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. اخلاقی، بهروز (1358)، "بحثی پیرامون مفهوم اسناد تجاری"، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق­و علوم سیاسی، 21: 8-44.
    2. اسکینی، ربیعا (1393)، حقوق تجارت: برات، سفته، قبض انبار، اسناد در وجه حامل و چک، چاپ نوزدهم، تهران: سمت.
    3. جعفرزاده، میرقاسم و احمدی‌راد، حمیدرضا (1391)،"تحلیل ماهیّت حقوقی انتقال­الکترونیکی وجوه با رویکرد انتقال حقّ"، تحقیقات حقوقی (ویژه‌نامه)، 9: 151-178.
    4. شوشی‌نسب، نفیسه (1394)، ماهیّت حقوقی اوراق بهادار، تهران: بنیاد حقوقی میزان.
    5. شهیدی، مهدی (1380)، تشکیل قراردادها و تعهّدات، چاپ دوم، تهران: مجد.
    6. شیروی، عبدالحسین و میری، حمید (1388)، "بررسی تطبیقی انتقال الکترونیکی اسناد تجاری (برات، سفته و چک)، حقوق خصوصی، 12:6-29.
    7. صالحی مازندرانی، محمد و بیات، فرهاد (1393)، "تبیین ماهیّت حقوقی انتقال اعتبار از طریق نظام بانکی"، پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، 6:33-61.
    8. صقری، محمد (1388)، حقوق بازرگانی: اسناد، چاپ ششم، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
    9. عبادی، محمدعلی (1392)، حقوق تجارت، چاپ سی و سوم، تهران: گنج دانش.
    10. فخّاری، امیرحسین (1389)، اندیشه­های حقوقی سه، چاپ سوم، تهران: مجد.
    11. کاتبی، حسین‌قلی (1387)، حقوق تجارت، چاپ دوازدهم، تهران: گنج دانش.
    12. «دستورالعمل صدور دستور پرداخت و انتقال وجوه» مصوب 30/8/1385
    13. قانون تجارت.
    14. لایحۀ اصلاح قانون تجارت.

    ب) خارجی

     

    -  Algudah, Fayyad. (1992)The Liability of banks in electronic fund Transfer Transaction: A study in the British and the United States Law, Ph.D Thesis, the University of Edinburg.

    1. American Institute of Banking. (1922) Negotiable Instruments, Cornell University Library.

    -  Brace, Paul. (1976) Electronic Funds Transfer System: Legal Perspective, Osgoode Law Journal, Vol.14, 3:787-795.

    1. Brindle, M., & Cox, R. (2004) Law of Bank Payments, Sweet & Maxwell
    2. Ellinger, E. P., Lomnicka, E., & Hare, C. (2002). Ellinger's Modern Banking Law, Third Edition, Oxford University Press‏, pp.544-545.

    -  Kreltszheim, David. (2003) "The Legal Nature of Electronic Money", Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, Vol.14, 161-183.

    1. Sealy, Len S. and Richard Hooley. (2008) Commercial Law: Text, Cases & Materials, Oxford University Press, 4th ed, p.516.

    -  Convention Providing a Uniform Law for Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Geneva, 1930).

    -  U.K.Acts Interpretation Act 1978.

    -  AU. Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

    -  U.K.Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

    -  AU.Bills of Exchange Act 1909.

    -  U.S.Uniform Commercial Code 1952.

    -  UNCITRAL Legal Guide on Electronic Funds Transfers.

    -  uncitral Model Law on International Credit Transfers.

    -  Petroleum Co Ltd v Milton [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1060.

    -  Goodwin v. Robarts (1875) LR 10 Ex. 337.

    -  Tenax Steamship Co v The Brimnes, The Brimnes [1974] 3 All ER 88.

Comparative Law Review
Volume 7, Issue 1
Spring & Summer
April 2016
Pages 53-76

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics