جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « forbidden » در نشریات گروه « حقوق و علوم سیاسی »

Authorities of methodology haven’t full agreement about the effect of interdiction on transactions¡ but most of them know that the interdiction dependency to transaction result¡ inducement¡ conditions and obstacles will cause its invalidity. From the legal point of view legislator sometimes allocates the responsibility for implementing the interdiction based on invalidity or having no influence definitely. But he/she sometimes explains his/her ideas about proscription by expressing phrases like: it’s not true¡ it’s forbidden¡ it shouldn’t¡ it can’t and etc¡ while he/ she refrains from the allocation of responsibility for exact and definite implementing in this case. Now in this case¡ we face with this basic question that what kind of status has the conducted transaction finally in this manner? Whether we must merely make the corruption of transaction with the interdiction entrance and we don’t have an effect on it or because of legislator’s silence¡ we don’t consider expressing the responsibility for implementing in comparison with the entrance interdiction and based on the authenticity basis¡ we must consider the transaction true? Based on classification and severance have been made in the dependence of interdiction¡ the influence of the entrance interdiction is not the same in all cases¡ and it has severity and infirmity; so that if the dependence of interdiction is one of the transaction fundaments¡ it will undoubtedly have the transaction invalidity. But if the interdiction enters in the manner of predicating on transaction or it has the conditions other than the fundaments¡ responsibility will have another implementing according to the case.