A Comparative Study of the Consequences of the Seller's Non-Ownership in the Iranian Civil Code and the British Goods Sale Law

The contract of sale has different stages, from occurrence effects to impact and its implementation. In the meantime, although most jurists believe that Zamane Darak is not the effect of the correct contract of sale, the legislator has considered it as one of the effects of correct sale. Therefore, the main issue is what is the role of the seller (original) ownership in the various stages of the contract of sale? The aim is to examine and compare the consequences of the seller's lack of ownership in Iranian civil law and in the British Commodity Sale Act. Based on the above-mentioned laws, the findings of this study show that, if the seller (original) is not the owner, the contract of sale is not corrupt by itself, but with the survival of the correct contract (with the ability to affect), the buyer does not become the owner of the third party. " It seems that this "inherent loss" in paragraph 2 of Article 362 of the Iranian Civil Code is called "Darak ". The common denominator of both kind of laws is that, the contract of sale with this "inherent loss" will be compensated and "effective" if the owner subsequently consents. Consequently, the buyer becomes the owner of the third party. In the meantime, in English law, it can be said that the seller's non-ownership does not invalidate; It Zamane Darak. In fact, in the absence of ownership, an inherent loss is formed because the buyer is considered the owner and the contract is valid, but not effective. The present article is of descriptive-analytical type and examines the question in a library method.