1
Associate Professor at Law and Political Science Faculty of Tehran University
2
MA in Private Law of Imam Sadiq University
Abstract
Iran civil code (article 607) has explicitly regarded the deposit contract as a bare contract in which mustandi (trustee) receives no money from mudi (depositor) for protecting the thing(s) entrusted to him. In this study, we will investigate if being free of charge, as explicitly mentioned in the civil code, is the requirement of substance in deposit contract or it is possible to agree to the contrary by the parties of the contract. In other words, what is the performance guarantee of the condition in which the trustee agrees with depositor to receive money for protecting the thing(s) entrusted to him? Is this condition valid or it has no legal effect, and if it is of no legal effect, does it nullify the deposit contract too? What is the reason for mentioning free of charge in article 607 of the civil code? According to the findings of this paper, it seems that the primary target and main element of the deposit contract is only protection of the thing entrusted. As jurists and lawyers believe, the aim of the deposit contract is to subrogate another person to retain a thing. Therefore, the requirement of substance of deposit contract which is also the main aim of concluding the contract is retention and protection of the depositor's thing(s) by the trustee and being free of charge is a requirement of absoluteness in the deposit contract and not a requirement of substance. Thus, if the parties of the deposit contract agree otherwise, it does not nullify the contract.
Ismaili, M., & Alidadi Talkhestani, I. (2018). “Being Free of Charge” in Deposit Contracts: A Requirement of Substance or a Requirement of Absoluteness?. Judgment, 18(94), 37-54.
MLA
Mohsen Ismaili; Ismail Alidadi Talkhestani. "“Being Free of Charge” in Deposit Contracts: A Requirement of Substance or a Requirement of Absoluteness?". Judgment, 18, 94, 2018, 37-54.
HARVARD
Ismaili, M., Alidadi Talkhestani, I. (2018). '“Being Free of Charge” in Deposit Contracts: A Requirement of Substance or a Requirement of Absoluteness?', Judgment, 18(94), pp. 37-54.
VANCOUVER
Ismaili, M., Alidadi Talkhestani, I. “Being Free of Charge” in Deposit Contracts: A Requirement of Substance or a Requirement of Absoluteness?. Judgment, 2018; 18(94): 37-54.
)