A Critique on the Indication (Revealer) Theory of the Latter Consent of the Compelled Person

Article 190 of the civil code has stated the general principles of the validity of the contracts. According to this article, the mutual agreement (consent) and intent are necessary to carry out a contract. Absence of the intent causes the annulment of contracts and the absence of assent is rendered of no effect. The concurrence of the intent and assent is not the provision of the validity of the contracts and it is possible to be settled a contract with intention while it has no authentic consent. Such a person who carries out the contract under the external illegal pressure is called a compelled person. The contract which is established under the unwillingness is no effect and with the subsequent consent of the compelled is enforceable. The civil code has no special ordinance about the subsequent consent but it has considered the owner permission as indication (revealer) in an unauthorized contract. The law scholars, with the adoption of the criterion of an unauthorized contract extend the verdict of article258 of the civil code to compelled contracts. From one side, with respect to the bases of an unauthorized contract and article 258 of the civil code and the provisions of the reasoning validity from the way of deductive reasoning from other side, it seems that the mentioned deductive reasoning is not the authentic deductive reasoning. At the end with citation to the legal principles, it could be accepted the Conveyance of the subsequent consent of the compelled person in compelled contracts.