خلاصة:
While “Merger of Debts” has generally been addressed as one of the grounds behind collapse of obligations in the form of a single article in the civil code, its real concept and nature is still far from clarity. The assemblage of the two terms of “Obligor” and “Obligee” in unitary person and asset and at the same time is referred to as “Merger of Debts”, which although its realization might be either inherent or conventional, causative is automatically releted after realization of cause. Once the cause of the ownership of “Merger of Debts” happen in authenticity, the obligation of its topic is collapsed. Although “Merger of Debts” does not affect the third party’s rights, its effects should be addressed in any case regarding the nature, type of obligation, and identification of the legal relationships between persons. The effects of Merger of Debts on the third party are among those neglected subjects with different variations that call for deeper investigation and reasoning. On one hand, the type of obligation and the original debt affect the appearance of Merger of Debts and, in each case, specially affect the third party. On the other hand, the effects of Merger of Debts on the plural obligors/obligees should be similarly identified with respect to their obligations.
ملخص الجهاز:
Ownership Maafi al-Zimmah and the Effect of its Realization regarding Third Parties Sajjad Shahbaz Ghahfarokhi 1 Abstract While ownership Maafi al-Zimmah has been generally mentioned as one of the causes for the discharge of obligations in a single article of the Civil Code, its concept and nature have not been thoroughly discussed.
Proponents of the third theory argue that with the realization of ownership Maafi al-Zimmah, the obligation is extinguished and its guarantees are released, but at the same time, some effects of the debt and the claim remain (Katouzian, 2016: 64).
Article 1300 of the French Civil Code also considers the convergence of the two titles of creditor and debtor in a single person as ownership Maafi al-Zimmah and considers it a cause for the discharge of the claim.
Second hypothesis; whenever the multiple obligees are more than two persons and the obligor becomes the owner ma fi al-zimmah of one of them: based on the premise that we consider the realization of ownership ma fi al-zimmah as a cause for the discharge of the obligation, first, the recourse among the creditors themselves is not solidary, because with the payment of the debt by the debtor (due to the realization of ownership ma fi al-zimmah), the quality of solidarity is extinguished; second, the other creditors only have the right of recourse against the receiving partner in a non-solidary manner regarding their own shares.
(
, 
, 
)
