چکیده:
This article is an attempt to examine and explain how an implicit condition depends on the contract; in this sense, whether an absolute condition must follow the necessity or permissibility of the contract, or whether an independent nature can be attributed to it apart from the contract. To conduct a detailed examination of the subject, the author initially divides conditions into two general categories: conditions having an obligation independent of the contract (such as a condition of agency within a marriage contract) and conditions lacking an independent obligation from the contract (such as a condition of quality). Subsequently, the author proceeds to a detailed investigation and presents various opinions regarding each of these forms. Furthermore, conditions that do not have the capacity for independent obligation are divided into two general topics: conditions within a permissive contract and conditions within a binding contract. Each has been critiqued and analyzed according to the famous opinions of jurists, the Civil Code, etc. In conclusion, the author examines conditions within a contract that possess the capacity for independent obligation and divides the discussion into the following four cases, based on the different states of permissibility or necessity of the contract and the condition: 1- Both the contract and the condition are binding; 2- Both the contract and the condition are permissive; 3- The contract is binding and the condition is permissive; 4- The contract is permissive and the condition is inherently a binding contract.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Sayyid Muhammad Kazim al-Tabataba'i writes regarding this: "ان لازم ما ذکرنا لزوم عقد الوکالة اذا اشترط فیها عدم العزل و لازم ما ذکروه عدم لزومه من جهة ان العقد من حیث هو جایز فیکون الشرط ایضاً جایزاً فلا یفید اللزوم و دعوی ا نه اذا اشترط عدم العزل فلا یبقی مجال لجواز الفسخ حتی یکون العقد جایزاً و یتبعه الشرط مدفوعه بانه اذا فرض کون لزوم الشرط موقوفا علی لزوم العقد فلا یلزم ذلک العقد بهذا الشرط والا لزم الدور" [Hashiyat al-Makasib 2: 125] Reasons for the Permissibility of a Condition within a Non-binding Contract First Reason: Following (Tab'iyyah) What is inferred from the words of the famous jurists is not only the reason for the permissibility of the contract itself and the necessity of the condition following and being subordinate to it, but rather Sayyid Muhammad Kazim al-Tabataba'i has stated that there is no reason other than what has been mentioned for this view.
The truth is that this rule has been used abundantly in the arguments of jurists; indeed, Sayyid Muhammad Kazim al-Tabataba'i considers the basis of the famous view to be only following (tab'iyyah), and the expression of the author of Jawahir in this regard, which explicitly argues for the chosen view of the famous [jurists] using the aforementioned rule, was mentioned recently, and in Riyad he says: ان الاجل المشترط فی المضاربه حیث کان غیر لازم بل جائز یجوز لکل منهما الرجوع لجواز اصله بلا خلاف کما مضی فلان یکون الشرط المثبت فیه جائزا بطریق اولی [طباطبایی کربلایی 1412 ج 1: 494].
(
, 
, 
)
