چکیده:
Although the Intention and Consent regarding the contract itself have been extensively discussed in both general and specialized legal writings, this discussion has been less addressed concerning one or more terms stipulated within the contract.This article, using a descriptive-analytical research method with a comparative approach, examines the absence of intent and consent regarding imposed contract terms in two separate discussions (despite the presence of both regarding the main contract):1. Imposed terms signed in the contract that are illegible, placed in unrelated section of the contract, or terms whose acceptance by the “obligated” party is unreasonable.2. Imposed terms that are not stated in the contract but are displayed elsewhere, included in contractual annexes that have not been signed by the contracting party, or mentioned in a document delivered after the contract`s conclusion, where the signed contract merely refers to them without specifying their exact content.Through a comparative study, it is concluded that such terms are void, similar to french law, under iranian law without affecting the validity of the main contract. Therefore, these terms are considered void but non-nullifying clauses, categorized in French law as nullité partielle.
خلاصه ماشینی:
com Abbas Karimi, Professor of Private Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Abstract Although intention and consent regarding the contract itself have been discussed extensively in general and specialized legal literature, this discussion has occurred less frequently in relation to one or more incidental conditions.
Clause One - Illegible imposed conditions Although in both legal systems under study, the principle is that signing a contract as a single unit (en bloc) means accepting all the conditions included therein, nevertheless, in French law, for nearly a century, courts have been addressing whether all contractual conditions have been understood and accepted by the weaker party or not?
The first law regarding imposed conditions in France, enacted in 1978, after defining these conditions, mandated the Council of Ministers to prepare a list of these conditions through the approval of a regulation; Article 1 of the implementing regulation approved on March 24, 1978, was dedicated to this matter and declared void any condition whose subject or effect is the attachment of a consumer or a non-professional person to contractual terms that have not been included in the signed contract; however, the French Council of State considered declaring such a condition void as an interference in the legislative domain and, for this reason, annulled Article 1 of the aforementioned regulation, thus rendering this measure futile2.
(
, 
, 
)
