چکیده:
the builder is considered one of the two important elements of a construction partnership contract, which will have a high degree of initiative in the manner and quality of the construction project. in fact, by concluding a partnership contract, the owner delegates most of the powers and roles that can be performed for the construction of the project to the builder, and therefore, in order to fulfill this obligation and also to finance itself, the builder makes various contractual and proprietary obligations to the owner (as a party to the contract) and third parties. one of the most frequent legal situations that is affected by judicial practice is the invalidity of a construction partnership contract for any of the reasons, including the lack of essential conditions for the validity of the transaction, seizure, confiscation, prohibition of trading, etc. this article has analyzed this fundamental issue: what effects are imposed on the builder's obligations in the event of the invalidity of the construction partnership contract? by separating the contractual and proprietary obligations of the builder, as well as the separation of contracts and legal acts, it has been concluded that in the event of invalidity, the property belongs to the owner and the builder will be entitled to equitable remuneration at a fair price. additionally, there will be no reason to invalidate or invalidate certificates and licenses issued based on the invalidity of the construction participation contract.
خلاصه ماشینی:
With the explanation provided, if we assume the incompetent person dies and the owners file a lawsuit against the builder's heirs to claim delay penalties (damages) for the non-execution of the second floor by the agreed deadline, the heirs will be able to evade the obligation to pay the penalty by filing a counterclaim to the request for declaration of nullity of the contract due to the interdiction (lack of capacity) of the parties and by citing the absence of the conditions subject to Article 190; because, in reality, the deceased did not have a valid will to accept the original commitment or the penalty related to it.
dated 1383 of the appellant to the first respondent, which is established by virtue of decision number 735 dated /11/1388 5 issued from branch 179 of the Tehran General Court, ruling the nullity of the said deed, and with this the description of the corruption of transactions occurring between the first respondent and subsequent hands was also established, and the possessory actions of the respondents in the aforementioned property, due to the lack of legal basis and the failure to transfer the property to a legal transferee, were considered aggressive and usurping; because according to Article 36 of the Civil Code, a possession that is proven not to have originated from a proprietary cause or a legal transferee shall not be valid.
(
, 
, 
)
