روش تعيين بهاي شرط

The Method for Determining the Price of the Clause

ضمانت اجراي شرط ضمن عقد به طور سنتي، الزام مشروط عليه و سپس حق فسخ عقد است. محدوديت در اين ضمانت اجرا هم موجب تزلزل رابطه قراردادي ميان طرفين عقد مي‌شود و هم مخالف مقتضاي عدالت است. مطالبه بهاي شرط، ضمانت اجراي عادلانه‌اي است كه اين كاستي را جبران مي‌نمايد. بر اساس نظريه «مطالبه بهاي شرط»، مشروط له پس از تخلف مشروط عليه و ممكن نبودن اجبار وي، حق دارد بها و قيمت شرط را از او مطالبه نمايد. نظريه فوق مبتني بر تقابل شرط و عوض، عموميت ارش، اصول لزوم قراردادها و قاعده لاضرر است. قاعده عدالت و عرف هم مويد اين ضمانت اجراست. در تعيين خسارت قراردادي به طور كلي و بهاي شرط به طور خاص، دو روش را مي‌توان اعمال نمود؛ روش عيني و روش ذهني. در روش عيني كه نمود نظم‌گرايي در تعيين بهاي شرط مي‌باشد، شيوه‌هاي معيني براي جبران خسارت توسط قانون‌گذار يا مفسر قانون توصيه مي‌شود. اما در روش ذهني، تعيين خسارت بر اساس ارزيابي دادرس از خسارت واردشده بر متضرر و به هدف جبران كامل خسارت صورت مي‌پذيرد. در نحوه تعيين بهاي شرط، با توجه به مبناي منتخب، روش عيني ترجيح دارد. هرچند در مواردي همچون تعيين بهاي شرط نتيجه و شرط صفتِ غير مالي ديدگاه ذهني اولويت مي‌يابد.

The guarantee of performance of the clause within a contract traditionally is the obligation of one who is the contract against and then the right of voidance or cancellation of the contract. The limitation in this executive guarantee causes the instability of the contractual relationship between contracting parties and it is also against the requirements of justice. Demanding the price of the provision is a just executive guarantee which compensates these damages (fault). According to the theory of “demanding the price of the provision”, after the violation of one who is the clauses against and not being possible to be obliged, the one who is the condition for is right to ask the price and the price of the provision. This theory is based on the balance of the provision and consideration, the generality of arsh (the compensation for a defect or the payment of a monetary indemnity), the principles of the exigency of the contracts, and the principle of no harm (la-tharar). The principle of justice and convention also emphasizes this guarantee of performance. Two methods can be applied to determine the contractual damages totally and the price of the provision specifically: objective method and subjective method. In objective method which is an indication of disciplinism in determining the price of the provision, the definite (identified) methods are recommended to compensate damages by the legislature or the interpreter of the law. But in subjective method, determining the damages is based on the estimate of the judge for the damage to the lost party to provide complete monetary compensation for loss. It is preferable the objective method to determine the price of provision with respect to the chosen base. Although in some cases such as determining the price of the non-financial result and adjective provision, the subjective attitude takes priority over the objective one. Key words: The price of the provision (Clause), A clause within a contract, Executive guarantee, The determination of damages, The objective method, The subjective method.