چکیده:
The 'promise of performance' of an obligation is a contractual agreement subject to the general effects and provisions of contracts. The question is whether the 'promise to perform' natural obligations can also, with the intention of the debtor, introduce this obligation lacking enforcement guarantee into the legal world? Or does the realization of this matter require the consent of the creditor? The divergence of opinions among legal scholars and judicial practice in this area is noteworthy. Sometimes the result of the 'promise of performance' is considered the formation of a new legal obligation with the subject of paying a moral debt, and sometimes only a simple 'acknowledgement' for the purpose of confirming and identifying a moral obligation. Some consider the new product to be the result of the 'transformation' of a natural obligation into a binding legal obligation.
خلاصه ماشینی:
As mentioned, sometimes, the “promise to perform” is considered a civil obligation created following a prior natural obligation and solely by the debtor’s promise, and is a type of unilateral act that does not require acceptance by the other party to be realized (Hemard, 1929202; Starck, 1972687; Josserand, 194012; Geny, 1954172).
On the other hand, we encounter analyses that do not consider the civil obligation resulting from the “promise to perform” as the result of the unilateral will of the debtor and compare it to a transformed legal relationship that, without changing the parties to the obligation or its subject matter, and merely by declaring the debtor’s will, only strengthens the previous obligation (Planiol et Rippert, 1977333).
Some scholars (Aubry et 13 et Rau, 196811) following “Pothier”5 (Planiol et Rippert, 1953325) have considered the promise to pay debts resulting from gambling and betting, despite their illegality and immorality, to be similar to a promise to fulfill a natural obligation, and have enabled the winner to legally demand it, while many others believe that this perception is derived from Articles 1965 and 1967 of the French Civil Code, which, on the one hand, do not provide any legal basis for claiming a debt resulting from gambling and betting, and on the other hand, do not consider the conscious payment of the loser refundable unless fraud, 1.
(
, 
, 
)
