عدم رعایت مصلحت موکل در عقد وکالت بازاندیشی در تفسیر مادۀ 667 قانون مدنی

یکی از چالش ‌برانگیزترین موضوعات عقد وکالت پاسخ به این پرسش است که جایگاه رعایت مصلحت موکل در نظام حقوقی ایران و در شرایط معاملات جاری در بازار چیست؟ از دیرباز عدم رعایت مصلحت موکل خود دغدغۀ فقیهان و سپس حقوقدانان بوده است. اگر در ضرورت رعایت مصلحت موکل تردیدی روا نبوده است، باری در تعیین آثار عدم رعایت مصلحت موکل اختلاف‌نظرها مشهود است، و نیز حقوقدانان در خصوص تعیین معیاری برای تبیین دایرۀ مصلحت آن را به‌عنوان مفهومی کیفی می‌انگارند و به عرف اتکا می‌کنند، اگرچه دغدغۀ انجام معاملات بدون رعایت مصلحت موکل همواره همراه ایشان بوده است. در این پژوهش ابتدا در مقام تبیین مفهوم و جایگاه عدم رعایت مصلحت موکل با نگاهی متفاوت در حقوق ایران هستیم و در ادامه مبنایی علمی برای تعیین معیار کمی عدم رعایت مصلحت و اثر آن در صحت و بطلان و یا عدم نفوذ عقد ارائه شده است، باشد که جامعۀ حقوقی پذیرای این رویکرد نوین باشد.

failure to comply with the principal’s interest in the agency contract: reconsidering the interpretation of article 667 of the civil code of the iri

one of the most challenging aspects of the agency contract is determining the criteria for assessing whether the principal’s interests are not respected from a scientific standpoint and in accordance with the prevailing custom of any given business. furthermore, it is essential to ascertain the sanctions thereof.failure to respect the interest of principal has long been the concern of jurists and then lawyers. while there is no doubt in the necessity to comply with the principal’s interest, there are a lot of difference of opinion in determining the effects of not observing the principal’s interest, and also the jurists consider it as a qualitative concept and rely on the custom in determining a standard for explaining the scope of principal’s interest. performance of transactions without respecting the interest of the principal has always been a legal concern. custom also deals with ambiguity in this regard, and as a result, the court refers the matter to the expert in the hearing, and the expert, due to the existence of a common scientific basis, ultimately gives an opinion intuitively and with perception, and the court has no way to control it also, the courts have had a different approach regarding the sanction of non-observance of the principal’s interest, and this adds to its ambiguity. however, the en bank members of the supreme court of iran in its unified judicial precedent no. 847 dated 2/25/1403, ruled on the non-effectiveness of contract till the approval of principal, but it still does not provide a criterion for determining non-compliance with principal’s interest, and the application of the notion of non- effectiveness of contract does not meet today’s social needs.the lack of effectiveness of the transaction, which we find as the basis of a non-authorized contract in the traditional commodity markets, could be considered as an effective institution from the point of view of economic and social analysis. however, the lack of effectiveness of the transaction in the new goods and services markets as well as in the financial markets lacks efficiency and causes an increase in transaction costs.in fact, we are faced with the default of information symmetry in a small society with fast information circulation, and it has been compiled accordingly. this means that in primitive societies, people were quickly informed of all events, and as a result, the owner of a property could not have been unaware of the unauthorized transaction. therefore, based on the assumption of symmetry of information, the legislator believed that if the owner of goods recognizes the transaction as a loss, he can disrupt it. in a traditional rural society with a limited population and with the presence of virtue-oriented and often religious people, the non-authorized transaction has always been based on the interest of the owner.so, non-authorized transaction has an effective and efficient function in this social system and in that context, social relations (failure of market relations) such as moral hazard and free riding caused by asymmetry of information does not fail. the reason is that, first of all, in this society, information is exchanged quickly and the type of long-term relationship between the people of this limited society is such that it leads to participation and in this participatory process, the desire for free riding (working for one’s own benefit and benefiting at the expense of another) and moral hazard (preferring one’s own benefit over another’s) decreases.therefore, a non-authorized transaction in a rural society (with limited actors, and its own surrounding environment and social context) is considered as an efficient indicator, and the sanction of non-approval will not hinder this efficiency, even though in most cases we are faced with the subsequent acceptance of the owner and rejection of the transaction seems unlikely).