scholarly journals Investigating Sanction of the Conditions in the Settlement Contract with Regard to Registration of Deeds and Real Estate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Narimisa ◽  
Alireza Entezari
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
The Law

Considering that Articles 47 and 48 of the Registration Law have stated that registration of the document of settlement contract is obligatory and its sanction is the non-acceptability of unofficial documents in courts and departments. However, it must be said that these articles do not declare the invalidity of normal documents absolutely, but the meaning of the non-acceptability of such documents is that they cannot be referred to in relation to third parties, while such documents are valid and authentic for the parties to the contract, and because of the fact that the document is a normal contract, the parties to the contract cannot refuse to fulfill their commitment and execute the contract by the excuse that such documents must have been registered in accordance with the law. Therefore, referring to ordinary settlement agreement, the grantee cannot claim the propriety of some property against persons other than grantor, but in the case of denial of the occurrence of a transaction between the parties to the settlement, the beneficiary can refer to the ordinary document of that transaction to prove the occurrence of the transaction between themself and the other person, and such a reference is reviewable by the court. In addition to that the grantor and grantee can refer to ordinary document and any provable evidence in their controversy and dispute about the settlement subject and prove the occurrence of settlement, the grantee can bring an action against the grantor and obligate them to arrange an official settlement document by proving the settlement and by invoking to Article 220 of the Civil Code, because according to the mentioned article, transactors are not only committed to what is stated in the contract, but are also committed to all the results of the contract in accordance with customs or law. However, if a dispute occurs between the grantee and a third party about the settlement subject and an action is brought, then if the grantee presents the ordinary settlement document to prove their ownership, the court according to the Registration Law will not consider that document effective, and the grantee may even be convicted against the third party. The settlement is not correct if its provisions arecontrary to the law, order and the general rules, and if the settlement document arranged in a notary office has a substantive, procedural or legal problem then the competent legal authorities such as the High Council of Registry investigate the issue and the provisions applicable will be issued.

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

scholarly journals L’interprétation des clauses base-réclamation dans les contrats d’assurance de responsabilité civile au Québec

2021 ◽  
Vol 88 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 53-90
Author(s):  
Thomas Stéphane Nguema Evie
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Insurance Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
Main Effects ◽  
Order Set

This article addresses the question of the interpretation of base-claim clauses in Quebec insurance law. Defined mainly by the doctrine as clauses whose effects consist in assimilating the claim to the claim of the victim, the use of base-claim clauses raise several questions as to their legality on reading articles 2396 of the civil code and 2414 of the same. coded. While the first defines the claim as a damaging event, the second article states the relative public order nature of the provisions of Chapter XV of Title 2 of Book V of the Civil Code, among which is Article 2396 of the Civil Code. Article 2414 states that the provisions of Chapter XV may be subject to a derogation if this benefits the policyholder, the insured, the beneficiary or does not infringe the rights of third parties. However, one of the main effects of base-claim clauses is to considerably restrict the direct action of the third party towards the insurer but, also, to place on the back of the insured the lack of diligence of the injured third party. In the silence of the law, it is then up to the courts to assess the compliance of the basis-claim clauses with public order set out in article 2414 through virtual public order. This article attempts to suggest means of interpretation aimed at establishing the illegality of base-claim clauses.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties Under the Taiwan Civil Code

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Japan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masami Okino
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
German Model ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KREDITUR PEMEGANG HAK TANGGUNGAN TERHADAP SENGKETA AGUNAN YANG MENGAKIBATKAN BATALNYA PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Fransisca Kusuma Aryani ◽  
Gunawan Djajaputra
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
District Court ◽  
Good People ◽  
Warning Letter ◽  
The Law ◽  
Debt Repayment ◽  
Credit Agreement

The process of granting credit with the guarantee of Mortgage Rights experienced many obstacles, one of which is the cancellation of credit agreement due to a lawsuit from a third party. Examples of problems that will researchers take is a case between PT PNM as creditor and Erlinawati as a debtor. Erlinawati applied for credit to PT PNM and pledged SHM No. 1716 without her husband's agreement, Bagus Satriya. As time went by, Erlinawati could not fulfill its obligations as stipulated in the credit agreement, and then PT PNM sent a warning letter to Erlinawati. Good people who know the land and buildings of his property are used as a direct guarantee to file a lawsuit to the Blora District Court. The Blora District Court ruled that credit agreements and Deed of Mortgage Rights (APHT) are invalid and null and void. So far the legal protection for debtors who have sued from the other party on the guarantee given by the creditor has not been regulated specially in the legislation. The law only regulates bad debts and debt repayment through the execution process stipulated in the Law on Banking and Insurance Rights Act. Legal protection that creditor can use when obtaining a lawsuit from a third party is by using the general guarantees provided for in Articles 1131 and 1132 of the Civil Code.

Taking Sides in Wars of Attrition

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT POWELL
Keyword(s):  
Asymmetric Information ◽  
Continuous Time ◽  
Formal Analysis ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
War Of Attrition ◽  
The Third ◽  
Boomerang Effect ◽  
Formal Framework

Third parties often have a stake in the outcome of a conflict and can affect that outcome by taking sides. This article studies the factors that affect a third party's decision to take sides in a civil or interstate war by adding a third actor to a standard continuous-time war of attrition with two-sided asymmetric information. The third actor has preferences over which of the other two actors wins and for being on the winning side conditional on having taken sides. The third party also gets a flow payoff during the fighting which can be positive when fighting is profitable or negative when fighting is costly. The article makes four main contributions: First, it provides a formal framework for analyzing the effects of endogenous intervention on the duration and outcome of the conflict. Second, it identifies a “boomerang” effect that tends to make alignment decisions unpredictable and coalitions dynamically unstable. Third, it yields several clear comparative-static results. Finally, the formal analysis has implications for empirical efforts to estimate the effects of intervention, showing that there may be significant selection and identification issues.

Conditions in Favour of Third Parties

1952 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-257
Author(s):  
T. C. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party

The purpose of this article is to consider the legal effects of a transfer of property by A to B subject to the performance by B of some obligation in favour of C, a third party to the transfer. The student of the law of contract is well familiar with the common law rule that no one who was not an original party to the contract is entitled to the benefit of that contract. But this rule creates hardship in particular cases and it has been shown that, in the main, three methods have been evolved to evade those unfortunate results. First, the legislature has intervened and provided C, the third party, with statutory rights. Secondly, the doctrine of agency has been invoked whereby C may claim that he is the principal of B. Thirdly, but with varying success, the trust concept has been pressed into service whereby C has sometimes been able to show that he is a beneficiary.

scholarly journals Kolizyjnoprawna problematyka skuteczności przelewu wierzytelności wobec osób trzecich — projekt rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie prawa właściwego dla skutków przelewu wierzytelności wobec osób trzecich (COM(2018) 96 final)

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Witold Kurowski
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

The question of which law should govern the third-party effects of assignments of claims was considered during the preparation of the Rome I Regulation. The European Commission’s proposal for the Rome I Regulation admitted the law of the assignor’s habitual residence as the law that should apply to the proprietary effects of assignments of claims. Finally, EU Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations did not include the issue of the third-party effects of the assignment. However, Article 27(2) of the Rome I Regulation required the European Commission to present a report on the question of the effectiveness of assignments of claims against third parties accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal to amend the Rome I Regulation. Proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims (COM(2018) 96 final) is a response to this request. This paper analyses current draft of the new EU Regulation, the rules on determination of the third-party effects of assignments of claims (law of the assignor’s habitual residence and law of the assigned claim) and "super conflict rules" in specific cases. The author argues that the law of the assignor’s habitual residence remains the appropriate conflict rule for proprietary effects of assignments of claims.

scholarly journals LEGITYMACJA PROCESOWA UMOWNEGO ZARZĄDCY NIERUCHOMOŚCI

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 203
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Jędrejek
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Real Estate ◽  
The Third

Judicial Ticket of a Contractual Real Estate ManagerSummary The aim of this article is to explain all doubts referring to a judicial ticket of a contractual real estate manager, which has been legislated in a co-owners’ contract. The issue mentioned above arouses controversy in doctrine but also in judicature. One has adopted a stance in the article, that the real estate manager has got the title to bring the action before the court, which is based on the article 201 of the civil code. A contract connected with entrusting management does not deprive the owners of the rights, including claims consisting of property law. Co-owners allow third parties to carry out entitlements connected with management of a common property. The article consists of three parts. The first one contains concise deliberations about the notion of legitimization. The problem of a judicial ticket of a manager, who was legislated in a contract by co-owners of a common property (article 199-202 of the civil code) was discussed in the second part. The third part of the article is connected with a judicial ticket of a real estate manager, which was mentioned in an act of proprietorship of premises.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document