نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه حقوق و الهیات دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی و اجتماعی دانشگاه گلستان، گلستان، ایران
2 استاد گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی دانشگاه مازندران، مازندران، ایران
3 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه مازندران، مازندران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The guarantor is obliged to recall the debtor to the creditor under the surety contract and in case of default of the obligation, according to the law, it must pay the debtor debt or the amount of bail as compensation for noncompliance obligation. The basic problem that this research has addressed with a descriptive and analytical method is what kind of obligation the guarantor's obligation is, and which persons has the capacity to enter into a guaranty contract.
By examining the opinions of jurists and lawyers, it was determined that the guarantor's obligation to recall the obligee is a non-financial obligation, but because this obligation also has financial effects, the guarantor must be adult, wise and mature, and because the surety contract is harmful, the minor and the non-mature cannot enter into this contract either in person or through a guardian or mandatory. Another issue that is raised here is whether, in case where after concluding the guaranty, a guarantor who has the capacity faces insanity, foolishness, coma or bankruptcy, the guaranty contract will be still valid, or the contract of surety will be destroyed due to the occurrence of these cases. By looking into the books of jurists and legal authors, it is clear
that although surety is a binding contract, because the guarantor's commitment depends on him, the surety contract will be dissolved if the guarantor suffers from permanent insanity after the contract and before the recall. Therefore, the fulfillment of the obligation cannot be requested from the heir or the agent of the guarantor, and the debt or the amount of bail cannot be received from the property of the guarantor. The court must instead ask the debtor to introduce a new guarantor. In the assumption of periodical insanity, although the contract of surety remains, it is not possible for the guarantor to perform the obligation during the period of insanity, as this causes loss to the creditor. Therefore, the court should ask debtor to introduce a new guarantor. In case of the guarantor's foolishness, because legally and commonly, the fool has the ability to fulfill the obligation and present the guarantor, in case of breach of the covenant, he is obliged to pay the safe pledge. In describing the conditions of the guarantor, the Imami jurists, in addition to maturity, wisdom and growth, consider the absence of bankruptcy as a condition and state that if the guarantor is not able to summon the debtor, he must take care of the religion, and because a bankrupt person is prohibited from seizing his property, it is not possible to enter into suretyship unless the creditors give him permission to do so. In Article 221 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the condition of the guarantor's solvency is stated and, therefore, if a person is bankrupt, his guarantee should not be accepted, However, if the judge accepts the guaranty of the bankrupt regardless of the insolvency, the guaranty contract is valid. Because according to Article 418 of the Commercial Law, the bankrupt is prohibited from taking possession of his financial affairs after the issuance of the bankruptcy award. And since the surety contract is a non-financial contract, the bankrupt has the ability and competence to conclude it. However, if the guarantor does not present the debtor on the due date, the court did not have the right to collect the amount of the surety from the property of the guarantor without the permission of the creditors. And in the case of receiving the amount of bail, according to paragraph 2 of Article 423 of the Commercial Law, such receipt is invalid and the amount of bail must be returned to the receiver. Therefore, it is not possible to pay the debt due to surety until the end of bankruptcy. In case of bankruptcy of the guarantor after concluding the surety, the surety contract is still valid and if the guarantor refuses to summon the debtor, the creditor must enter the creditors of the bankrupt guarantor to collect the amount of bail. In the assumption that the guarantor falls into a coma after concluding the contract due to the lack of will and intention during the coma, it is not possible to ask him to summon debtor. Therefore, according to Article 234 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the court can reject the surety contract and ask the debtor to introduce a new guarantor. However, in case of brain death, the guarantor is assumed to be dead, the surety contract is terminated and the debtor must introduce a new guarantor according to the law.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
منابع
https://aqojap.qom.iau.ir/article_523079.html ، (27 مهر 1401).
)