عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
Some Juristic repeated the distinction between Intent and Satisfaction in Iran's civil code to find a probable base for this issue. In their pinpoint intent and satisfaction is separated in Iran's civil code as same as French's civil code. They imply to Demand and intent in Shia Jurisprudence to find out of this distinction. For this sale such as reluctant sale and meddler sale that intent exists but without the consent, although they aren't valid, can be assumed valid when Subsequent consent comes to exist.
It seems this Juristic's idea that theydon't distinct betweentwo kinds of consent and believe intent is separable although it is Simple and single SensualQuality, is not true.Therefore if consent doesn't exist intent will not come to exist, too. In fact, consent in this meaning is against Compulsion and in another meaning consent is against Reluctance.
Undoubtedly, in Compulsion, intent and consent in first meaning have been exist although in second meaning hasn't and it seems that the primary authors of the Civil Code have been used consent in second meaning. As a result, setting the basement of juristic is Unreasonable, because of Non-distinction between different meanings of consent.
In this article by Referring to Juridical texts that different consents are separated, can show correct basement for separation of intent from consent
برای مشاهده اصل مقاله به صورت کامل، بر روی لینک "اصل مقاله" در بالای صفحه کلیک کنید