The Sufficiency of the Owner's Inner Satisfaction in Influencing the Transaction with Regard to Other Person's Property

The Civil Code considers the transaction of another person’s property to be unauthorized and ineffective except as guardianship or administration or representation, even if the owner of the property is satisfied voluntarily. In this regard, the authors of the Civil Code have followed the view of the majority of Imamiyeh jurists who believe that the inner satisfaction of the owner during the contract is not enough to influence it. Sheikh Ansari is one of the few jurists who believes that the inner satisfaction of the owner during the contract is enough to influence it, and such a contract is out of the realm of unauthorized transactions. This means that from their point of view, it’s enough to have the inner satisfaction of the owner during the contract to influence it, and it is not necessary to announce the consent by external indication (permission). Sheikh Ansari's theory was severely criticized by the jurists after him. In this article, the author, while explaining them, has responded to them in order to confirm the mentioned theory. In a summary of the presented contents, it’s concluded that contrary to the opinion of the majority of jurists who believe enforcement or authorization has a written nature which cannot be realized except through the expression of inner consent, enforcement has a declarative aspect, and is the only conventional means of discovering one's inner consent. Therefore, in a transaction that a person makes in relation to another's property, if in any way the existence of the owner's consent during the contract is found out, it must be said that it is authentic contract and its effects must be recognized.