Security Right against Receivables under ‎UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions ‎and Iranian Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Kharazmi ‎University

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and ‎Political Sciences, Kharazmi University

Abstract

Abstract
In the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions, it is possible to create a non-possessory security right against movable assets means a tangible or intangible asset, other than immovable property to allow debtors to use the full value inherent in their assets to support credit. In this way, the use of intangible asset such as a right to payment of a monetary obligation subject to encumbered asset has been provided to guarantee and secure the obligation secured by a security right called secured obligation. in this model law, monetary obligation monetary is movable asset which has value inherent and exchange value and can be used as encumbered asset. Four types of this asset including receivable, right to payment of funds credited to a bank account, right to payment under non-intermediated security and right to payment under negotiable instrument has been regulated under the model law. In a special sense, the receivable can be considered as a right to payment of a monetary obligation because the creation and transfer of a receivable is not subject to special formalities, which is opposed to a right to payment under negotiable instrument and a right to payment under securities that the creation and transfer of debt in them is a place of reflection without observing special formalities. In this model law, the meaning of security right been changed from a right based on tangible and objective asset to an accessory and dependent right to secure secured obligation to include intangible asset such as receivable. In Iranian law, there are conflicting provisions for security right against receivable: On the one hand, it invalid by article 774 of the Civil Code, but on the other hand, in some scattered laws, such as article 1 of the law on facilitating banking facilities and reducing project costs and accelerating production projects and increasing financial resources and efficiency banks approved in 2007, security right against Receivable in the form of future income is considered possible without defining a precise framework for creating. This descriptive-analytical method has tried to investigate the method of creating security right against receivable in the UNCITRAL model law through a comparative study, and through this a new format for applying the provisions of the UNCITRAL law in  Iiranian law. The main question of the research is how in the UNCITRAL model law, is created the security right against receivable? In response, it should be said that in the model law, the security right is created by the security agreement. This contract is concluded between two persons means the creditor as the grantor and the secured creditor that its purpose is to secure Secured obligation. The essence of the agreement is the possibility of secured creditor to collect payment from the debtor without transferring ownership to the secured creditor. Under this agreement, the receivable is seized in favour of the secured creditor and is entitled to collect payment from the debtor after default of the secured obligation. This agreement takes effect between the parties as soon as the security agreement is entered into without the need for the an additional step but it has no effectiveness against debtor and third parties unless the requirements of the model law have been met. For achieving debtor effectiveness, a notification or payment instruction must be notified to him so that he can be required to fulfill his obligation to the secured creditor, otherwise the debtor has no obligation to payment of money to him. For achieving third party effectiveness, the primary method is used as notice with respect to the security right is registered in the registry. There are no provisions in Iranian law such as the provisions of the Model Law. This study suggests that the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law be used to legislate the creation of Security right against receivable in Iranian law.

Keywords

References

  1. منابع

    الف) فارسی

    1. امامی، سید حسن (1384). حقوق مدنی، ج 2، تهران: اسلامیه.
    2. انصاری، علی (1391). تئوری حسن نیت در قراردادها، تهران: جنگل.
    3. جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1378). حقوق مدنی رهن و صلح، تهران: گنج دانش.
    4. ---------------------- (1384). مسائل منطق حقوق و منطق موازنه، تهران: گنج دانش.
    5. رباطی، مهسا؛ سعید محسنی؛ سید محمدمهدی قبولی درافشان (1399). «واکاوی مفهوم استنادناپذیری و تمایز آن از مفاهیم مشابه»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، ش 1، ص 75-57.

           DOI: 10.22059/JLQ.2020.279343.1007198

    1. عبدی‌پور فرد، ابراهیم (1394). مباحثی تحلیلی از حقوق تجارت، قم: پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه.

          7.کاتوزیان، ناصر (1385[الف]). حقوق مدنی: عقود اذنی- وثیقه‌های دین، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.

    1. ---------- (1385[ب]). حقوق مدنی: نظریۀ عمومی تعهدات، تهران: میزان.
    2. کریمی، عباس (1376). «رهن دین»، مجلۀ دانشکدۀحقوق و علوم سیاسی، ش 1225، ص 42-19. در: (23 مرداد 1399)https://jflps.ut.ac.ir/article_15903.html.
    3. مسجدسرائی، حمید؛ زهرا فیض (1395). «درآمدی بر «مفهوم مخالف» در تفسیر گزاره‌های حقوقی»، فصلنامۀ پژوهش‌های فقه و حقوق اسلامی، ش 45، ص 136-115. در: (2 شهریور 1399)

         https://journals.iau.ir/article_530046_b313e6e4d3e076bd5779508ca600155d.pdf

    1. محقق داماد، سید مصطفی (1388). نظریۀ عمومی شروط و التزامات در حقوق اسلامی، تهران: مرکز نشر علوم اسلامی.

     

    ب) خارجی

    1. Beale, Hugh; Bridge, Michael; Gullifer, Louise; Lomnicka, Eva (2012). The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing, New York : Oxford University Press.
    2. Burnham, Scott J (2012). The Glannon Guide to Secured Transactions, Harvard: Wolters Kluwer.
    3. Dahan, Frederique; Simpson, John (2009). Secured Transactions Reform and Access to Credit, Northampton, Edward Elgar.
    4. Fishman, RM (2016). Secured Transactions, Illinois, Illinois Institute For Continuing Legal Education.
    5. Halson, Roger ; Campbell, David (2018). Research Handbook on Remedies in Private Law, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
    6. Hannan, Neil (2017). Cross-Border Insolvency The Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law, Singapore: Springer.
    7. Hylton, Keith N; Cass, Ronald A (2013). Property Rights in the World of Ideas, London: Harvard University Press.
    8. Johnston, Johnston (2015). The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    9. Kieninger, Eva-Maria (2004). Security Rights in Movable Property in European Private Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    10. Kono, Toshiyuki (2017). Security Interests in Intellectual Property, Singapore: Springer.
    11. Lewin, Peter; Cachanosky, Nicolás) 2020). Capital and Finance_ Theory and History, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
    12. Leslie, Nico; Smith, Marcus (2018). The Law of Assignment, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    13. Martha, Rutsel Silvestre J (2015). The financial obligation in international law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    14. Miller, Roger LeRoy (2015). Business Law Today Text & Cases, Arlington: Cengage Learning.
    15. Neil, Andrews (2011). Contract law, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    16. Richards, Paul (2017). Law of contract, London, Pearson Education Limited.
    17. Rhodes, Tony (2012). Euromoney Encyclopedia of Debt Finance, London: Euromoney Institutional Investor.
    18. Roberts, Barry S, Mann, Richard A (2018). Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, Boston: Cengage Learning.
    19. Rogers, James Steven (2004). The Early History of the Law of Bills and Notes A Study of the Origins of Anglo-American Commercial Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    20. Ryder, Nicholas (2012). Commercial Law Principles and Policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    21. Stanescu, Catalin Gabriel (2015). Self-Help, Private Debt Collection and the Concomitant Risks, New York: Springer.
    22. Tolhurst, Greg (2006). The Assignment of Contractual Rights, Portland: Hart Publishing.
    23. Uncitral (2017). UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions Guide to Enactment, United Nations: Vienna.
    24. Uncitral (2017). UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions, United Nations: Vienna.
    25. Westbrook, Raymond; Jasnow, Richard (2001). Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law, Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.
    26. Zimmermann, Reinhard (2012). The New German Law of Obligations: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Law Quarterly
Volume 52, Issue 1
April 2022
Pages 21-42

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics