رویکرد حقوق آمریکا و ایران به شروط ناعادلانه قراردادی

ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺖ ﺟﺎﯾﮕﺎه ﻣﻔﺎﻫﯿﻢ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﯿﻦ ﮔﺎم در ﺗﺒﯿﯿﻦ اﺻﻮل و ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ و اﺟﺮای آن اﺳﺖ. در ﻃﻮل ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ ﺷﯿﻮه ﺑﺤﺚ و ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎن در ﻣﺎﻫﯿﺎت ﻓﻘﻬﯽ و ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻗﻄﻊ راﺑﻄﻪ از ﻣﻔﻬﻮم ذﻫﻨﯽ اﻧﺘﺰاع ﺷﺪه از ﻣﻨﺸﺄ و ﺧﺎﺳﺘﮕﺎه آن ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮری ﮐﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ از ﮐﺸﻒ ﯾﮏ ﻣﻔﻬﻮم ﻓﺎرغ از ﻋﺮف و ﺗﻠﻘﯽ ﻣﺮدم، اﺻﺎﻟﺖ و ﻣﺎﻫﯿﺖ آن و ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ و ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ آن ﻣﻮرد ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ و ﭼﺎﻟﺸﻬﺎی ﻓﻘﻬﯽ و ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ اﯾﻦ ﻣﺎﻫﯿﺎت در ﻗﺮاردادﻫﺎ و ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت در ﺳﻄﺢ ﺧﺮد و ﮐﻼن ﮐﻪ ﻧﺎﺷﯽ از ﻋﺪم ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﺑﺮ اﯾﻦ رواﺑﻂ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ ﯾﮏ ﺑﻪ ﯾﮏ ﺗﺒﯿﯿﻦ و رﯾﺸﻪ ﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ. ﯾﮑﯽ از اﯾﻦ ﭘﺪﯾﺪه ﻫﺎی ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع وﺟﻪ اﻟﺘﺰاﻣﻬﺎی ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﻨﺼﻔﺎﻧﻪ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﭘﺲ از اﻧﻌﻘﺎد ﻣﻤﮑﻦ اﺳﺖ ﺳﺮﻣﻨﺸﺄ ﺑﺮوز ارادی ﯾﺎ ﻗﻬﺮی اﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت اﻧﺠﺎم ﺷﺪه ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﯿﺪﻫﺪ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﯿﺮی از اﯾﺠﺎد ﺷﮑﺎف ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻃﺮف ﻗﻮی ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار از وﺿﻌﯿﺖ ﻣﺴﻠﻂ و ﻃﺮف ﺿﻌﯿﻒ ﮐﻢ ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان آرﻣﺎن ﻋﺪاﻟﺖ ﻃﻠﺒﺎن، در ﻧﻬﺎﯾﺖ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺐ دﺳﺘﻮراﻟﻌﻤﻞ 13.93 اﺗﺤﺎدﯾﻪ اروﭘﺎ ﺷﺪه، دوﻟﺖ ﻫﺎی ﻋﻀﻮ ﻫﺮ ﯾﮏ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﯽ از ﺑﻄﻼن ﻣﻄﻠﻖ،ﺑﻄﻼن ﻧﺴﺒﯽ و ﯾﺎ ﺣﻤﺎﯾﺘﯽ را ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺒﻨﺎی آن، ﺑﻄﻼن ﯾﮏ ﺷﺮط ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﻣﻨﺤﺼﺮاً ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﻃﺮف ﺿﻌﯿﻒ رخ دﻫﺪ،ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﺿﻤﺎﻧﺖ اﺟﺮای ﻏﯿﺮﻣﻨﺼﻔﺎﻧﮕﯽ ﺷﺮوط ﻗﺮاردادی ﺑﻪ رﺳﻤﯿﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻪ اﻧﺪ. از ﺳﻮی دﯾﮕﺮ ﭘﺬﯾﺮش ﻧﻈﺮﯾﻪ ﺧﻼف وﺟﺪان ﺑﻮدن در اﯾﺎﻻت ﻣﺘﺤﺪه اﻣﺮﯾﮑﺎ ﺑﻪ اﺗﺨﺎذ اﯾﻦ اﺻﻞ در ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﺘﺤﺪاﻟﺸﮑﻞ ﺗﺠﺎری در ﻧﯿﻤﻪ ﻗﺮن ﺑﯿﺴﺘﻢ ﺑﺎز ﻣﯽ ﮔﺮدد ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺪف ﺧﻠﻖ اﻧﺪام ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ واﺣﺪ در ﺳﺮﺗﺎﺳﺮ اﻣﺮﯾﮑﺎ ﺑﻮﺟﻮد آﻣﺪه و ﺻﺮاﺣﺘﺎ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺿﻤﺎﻧﺖ اﺟﺮا را ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﯾﮏ اﻣﺮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﯽ ﺑﻪ دادﮔﺎه ﻣﺤﻮل ﮐﺮده اﺳﺖ. در ﺣﻘﻮق اﯾﺮان ﻗﺎﺑﻠﯿﺖ ﻫﺎی ﻣﻮﺟﻮد در ﻓﻘﻪ و ﻧﯿﺰ ﺗﻤﺴﮏ ﻗﻀﺎت ﺑﻪ اﺻﻮل ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ و ﺗﮑﻨﯿﮏ ﻫﺎی ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮی ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﮐﺎرﮔﺸﺎ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ از ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺗﺮﯾﻦ آﻧﻬﺎ اﺳﺘﻨﺎد ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﻢ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ،ﻻﺿﺮر و ﺳﻮء اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از وﺿﻌﯿﺖ اﺿﻄﺮار ﻣﯽ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ دﺳﺘﺎورد ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺣﮑﺎﯾﺖ از ﻟﺰوم اﻗﺪام ﺻﺮﯾﺢ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﮕﺬار دارد.

the approach of american and iranian law to unfair contractual terms

knowing the place of legal concepts is the first step in explaining legal principles and rules and their implementation. throughout history, the method of discussion and investigation by researchers in jurisprudence and law has been by disconnecting from the mental concept abstracted from its origin and origin, so that after discovering a concept free from the custom and perception of people, its authenticity and nature and the issues and the legal issues related to it have been taken into consideration and the jurisprudential and legal challenges of these natures in contracts and transactions at the micro and macro level, which were caused by the lack of recognition of the rules governing these relationships, have been explained and rooted one by one. one of these legal phenomena is the issue of unfair obligations, which may be the source of voluntary or forced disputes after the conclusion. the conducted studies show that preventing the creation of more gaps between the strong party with a dominant status and the weak party with a less privileged status as the ideal of justice seekers, has finally led to the approval of directive 13/93 of the european union, the member states of each concept of absolute nullity. , relative nullity or protection based on which the nullity of a condition can occur exclusively in favor of the weaker party, have been recognized as a guarantee of the unfair implementation of contractual terms. on the other hand, the acceptance of the theory of unconscionability in the united states of america goes back to the adoption of this principle in the uniform commercial law in the middle of the 20th century, which was created with the aim of creating a single legal body throughout the united states, and explicitly choosing the performance guarantee as a subject matter. assigned to the court. in iranian law, the capabilities available in jurisprudence as well as the adherence of judges to legal principles and interpretation techniques can be useful, among which the most important ones are the reference to public order, harmlessness and abuse of the state of emergency, but the result of the research indicates the need for action. legislator clearly has.