نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسنده
قاضی دادگستری، دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشگاه تهران (پردیس کیش)، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Abstract
Each party to the contract expects that in the event of termination, automatic cancellation or cancellation of the contract, the same exchange or compensation that it has transferred to the other party in the contract, to achieve the purpose of terminating the contract. But in many cases it happens that despite the existence and survival of the original property, it will not be possible to return it. In the event of automatic cancellation or cancellation of the contract before the property subject to the contract is transferred to the third party by the buyer (transferor), If there is a right of termination for the seller from the beginning of the contract and according to the contractual condition, the buyer does not have the right to transfer the property until the expiration of the seller's option. However, if the seller has a potential right of termination in the contract and the property is transferred to a third party before the right of termination is created, and also if the termination or termination of the contract occurs after the transfer of property to a third party, the same property is non-refundable. It is destructed in law. The fundamental question is to what extent the existence of a right of termination for the seller can limit the ownership of the buyer? if the property is transferred to a third party and the contract is terminated, the seller is considered a destructed, unless the condition is violated (explicit or implicit) and the buyer does not have the right to seize the option. However, in the case of a sale, the legislature presupposes that the right of termination contains the implicit obligation that the transaction must be ready to be returned to the original owner, and therefore prohibits seizure contrary to the option.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)