Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD student in the Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, Vahramarhormoz
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, Ramhormoz Ramhormoz Branch
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch
10.30510/psi.2022.324494.2950
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the basics of the obligation to implement the same contractual obligations in jurisprudence and the law of the Imams and the Ahl al-Bayt. In this article, the subject has been studied descriptively-analytically with a qualitative approach. One of the common methods of compensation in Imami jurisprudence and Iranian law is the obligation of the obligee to fulfill the contractual obligations. According to this method, if the obligor refuses to fulfill his contractual obligations, he will be obliged to fulfill the mentioned obligations, which will be done by the competent authorities in accordance with the legal prescription. In Imami jurisprudence and Iranian law, the obligation to fulfill the obligation is done in two ways that are parallel to each other: direct executive action and indirect executive action, which are divided into two types, namely financial obligation (such as confiscation of property) and physical obligation (imprisonment). Turns. The purpose of indirect enforcement action is to put the obligee in a situation where he is forced to fulfill the obligation by relying on the methods and guaranteeing legal enforcement. According to Articles (239), (238), (237) and (220) of the Civil Code, the obligation to perform the obligation by relying on direct executive action takes precedence over other methods and has priority, and if it is not possible to rely on this method. Other methods must be used.
Keywords
)