پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,282 |
| تعداد مقالات | 11,081 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 22,936,196 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 15,485,180 |
نقش تفسیر و توصیف در تفکیک امانت چک از صدور چک | ||
| دوفصلنامه علمی دانش حقوق مدنی | ||
| دوره 14، پاییز و زمستان 1404 (پیاپی 28)، اسفند 1404، صفحه 133-144 اصل مقاله (1.56 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی- پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/clk.2025.74254.3368 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سعیده باقری اصل* 1؛ حیدر باقری اصل2 | ||
| 1استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدة حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی تبریز، تبریز، ایران | ||
| 2استاد گروه حقوق، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هرچند دو نهاد حقوقی «ودیعة چک» و «صدور چک» در غالب موارد، کارکردهای متفاوت و متمایزی دارند، اما گاهی و در موارد فقدان ادلة اثبات برای هر کدام از آن دو، قاضی را در اختلاط مفهومی بین آن دو نهاد قرار میدهد و تشخیص و تفکیک آنها را از یکدیگر مواجه با مشکل میسازد. چنین موارد اختلاط مفهومی بین دو نهاد مذکور در صورتی تحقق دارد که شاکی مدعی خیانت در چک امانتی باشد، اما مشتکیعنه مدعی گردد، چک از بابت بدهی شاکی صادر گشته و در اختیار او گذاشته شده است و هیچ کدام دلیل اثباتی برای ادعای مذکور خود نتوانند ارائه دهند. بنابراین، سؤال اصلی تحقیق چنین است که «چگونه میتوان ودیعة چک را از صدور چک در موارد مذکور، تشخیص داد و تفکیک کرد؟». روش تحقیق، توصیفی تحلیلی و با استناد به ابزار کتابخانهای است و پژوهش به این نتیجة کلی دست یافته است که تنها راه حل انحصاری قاضی در تشخیص و تفکیک ودیعة چک از صدور چک، به ترتیب، استفاده از دو نهاد تفسیر و توصیف است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| اختلاط مفهومی؛ توصیف؛ تفسیر؛ خیانت در امانت؛ صدور چک؛ ودیعة چک | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Role of Interpretation and Description in Distinguishing Check Deposit from Check Issuance | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Saeideh Bagheri Asl1؛ Heydar Bagheri Asl2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Private Law Department, Faculty of Law, Theology & Politic Sciences, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| 2Professor of Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Although the two legal entities of "deposit check" and "check issuance" in most cases have different and distinct functions, sometimes and in cases of lack of evidence for each of them, the judge is confused between the two entities and faces a problem in distinguishing and distinguishing them from each other. Such cases of conceptual confusion between the two entities are realized if the plaintiff claims fraud in a trust check, but the defendant claims that the check was issued for the plaintiff's debt and was placed at his disposal, and neither of them can provide any evidence for their claim. Therefore, the main question of the research is: "How can a trust check be distinguished and distinguished from the issuance of a check in the aforementioned cases?" The research method is descriptive-analytical with reference to library tools, and the research has reached the following general conclusion: The only exclusive solution for the judge to distinguish and distinguish between deposit check from check issuer is to use the two institutions of interpretation and description, respectively. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Betrayal of Trust, Conceptual Mixing, Check Issuance, Description, Interpretation Trust Check | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Advisory Opinion No. 7/94/3156 (2016, February 1). General Legal Department of the Judiciary of Iran (in Persian). Advisory Opinion No. 7/94/3156 (2016, February 1). General Legal Department of the Judiciary of Iran (in Persian). Appellate Judgment No. 552 (2014, July 16). Branch 27, Court of Appeal of Tehran Province (in Persian). Appellate Judgment No. 601114 (2016, October 26). Branch 8, Court of Appeal of Qom Province (in Persian). Bénabent, A) .2016). Law of Obligations (15th ed.). Paris: LGDJ (in French). Bénabent, Alain (2016). Droit Des Obligations. 15eedition, paris: LGDJ. Buffelan-Lanore, Y; Larribau-Terneyre, V. (2017). Civil Law: Obligations (15th ed.). Paris: Sirey (in French). Buffelan-Lanore, Yvaine; Larribau-Terneyre, Virginie (2017). Droit Civil les obligations. 15eedition, paris: Edition sirey. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (in Persian). Criminal Judgment No. 400460 (2013, August 12). Branch 1049, General Criminal Court of Tehran (in Persian). Criminal Judgment No. 501814 (2016, February 25). Branch 115, Criminal Court II of Qom (in Persian). French Civil Code (in French). Iranian Civil Code (1928) (in Persian). Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure (2013, as amended) (in Persian). Iranian Commercial Code (1932) (in Persian). Islamic Penal Code of Iran (2013, as amended) (in Persian). Judicial Meeting Minutes (2019, April 30). Bandar Abbas, Hormozgan Province (in Persian). Law on Issuance of Checks (1993, with subsequent amendments) (in Persian). Legal Advisory Opinion No. 7/0981 (1998, November 10). Legal Department of the Judiciary of Iran (in Persian). Legal Advisory Opinion No. 7/1400/937 (2021, November 30). General Legal Department of the Judiciary of Iran (in Persian). Legal Advisory Opinion No. 7/1401/1097 (2023, May 23). General Legal Department of the Judiciary of Iran (in Persian). Legal Advisory Opinion No. 7/6630 (1988, March 1). Legal Department of the Judiciary of Iran (in Persian). Mansouri, M.; Al-Sharif, M.; Tabatabaei, Seyed M. (2022). “Characterization of Contracts in Mixed Agreements in Iranian Law, Imamiyya Jurisprudence, and French Law”. Comparative Law Journal, 13(1), pp.43–61 (in Persian). Marty, G.; Raynaud, P.; Jestaz, P. (1988). Civil Law: Obligations (2nd ed.). Paris: Sirey (in French). Marty, Gabriel; Raynaud, Pierre; Jestaz, Philippe (1988). Droit civil Les Obligations. 2eédition, paris: Editions Sirey. Riahi, M. (2023). “A Comparative Study of the Position of the Supreme Court over Lower Courts Considering the Normative and Factual Nature of Contract Interpretation in Iranian and French Law”. Comparative Law Studies, 14(2), pp. 807–829 (in Persian). Sotoudeh Tehrani, H .(1995). Commercial Law. Vol. 3, 1st ed. Tehran: Dadgostar (in Persian). Supreme Court Judgment No. 302087 (2016, September 19). Branch 38, Supreme Court of Iran (in Persian). Supreme Court Judgment No. 9309970925002197 (2015, March 16). Branch 35, Supreme Court of Iran. (Duplicate retained as provided) (in Persian). Supreme Court Judgment No. 9309970925002197 (2015, March 16). Branch 35, Supreme Court of Iran (in Persian). Unification of Judicial Precedent No. 58/25 (1980, April 21). General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Iran (in Persian). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 76 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 27 |
||