نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار، دانشکدۀ حقوق، پردیس فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران
2 استاد، گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی، واحد ساوه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، ساوه، ایران
3 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی، واحد ساوه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، ساوه، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Although mortgage, among other forms of guarantee contracts, has the widest application due to mortgagor’s direct domination over a mortgagee and developing better confidence, jurists, relying on four reasons, have different views about receipt and objectivity of the mortgaged property. Believing in the condition of receipt and material objectivity of mortgaged property in mortgage contract which also affect civil law had led to the shortcoming of this type of contract in the modern contracts which makes inevitable a change in the guarantee structure. Mortgage aims at achieving domination by the mortgagee over the mortgagor’s property to restitute his right. Domination is a conventional matter which has different instances in different times. Material receipt is only valid in this respect and its condition in making a mortgage contract cannot be proved by any jurisprudential reason. In addition, the objectivity of property, in its modern perception, is not limited to material object. The principles of general theory of collateral include proving this view, along with proving the unity of engagement and debt, the extent of guarantee, and concluding a guarantee as an innominate contract according to which it is possible to conclude any type of guarantee contract, material or non-material, such as the tangible specified object, debts, rights, intangible (descriptive) specified object.
کلیدواژهها [English]
Refrences