درآمدی بر بازشناسی وکالت مطلق (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)

درآمدی بر بازشناسی وکالت مطلق (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم) نویسندگان: اصغر زیرک باروقی منبع: مطالعات حقوقی دوره 15 زمستان 1402 شماره 4 چکیده قانون مدنی ایران در مواد 660 و 661 با اقتباس از قانون مدنی فرانسه به اختصار بیان داشته چنانچه موضوع وکالت شامل تمام امور موکل باشد، «مطلق» بوده و مربوط به «اداره کردن اموال» او خواهد بود. این نوع وکالت با وکالت مطلق مذکور در متون فقهی قابل انطباق نبوده و فقدان سابقه فقهی و عدم تبیین کارکرد آن در سایر مواد قانونی و آثار حقوق دانان موجب متروک ماندن آن شده است. در این پژوهش ضمن پاسخ به چیستی ماهیت وکالت مطلق، مفهوم اداره مال غیر، گستره اختیارهای مدیر و موارد انحلال آن بررسی و سعی شده است با استفاده از وحدت ملاک اداره مال غیر به نحو قانونی و فضولی و الهام از سایر نظام های حقوقی، تفسیری کارکردگرایانه از این نهاد حقوقی ارائه شود. اجمالاً می توان گفت که این نوع وکالت مربوط به «اداره اموال» بوده که در حقوق فرانسه از آن به «اداره ساده» اموال غیر یاد می شود و مدیر می تواند در صورت اقتضای نفعِ مالک قرارداد منعقد یا سایر اعمال حقوقی را اجرا کند و چنین وکالتی با عزل وکیل از سوی موکل فسخ لیکن با فوت یا حجر موکل منفسخ نمی شود. Exploring General Agency: Understanding its Scope and Implications within Iranian Civil Code Articles 660 and 661 of the Iranian Civil Code, borrowed from the French Civil Code, provide insights into agency matters, particularly focusing on the nature of general agency and acts of administration. However, these articles, directly transposed into the Iranian Civil Code from their French counterparts in 1987 and 1988, haven't been extensively explored in legal discourse. The prevailing opinion either dismisses their relevance or doesn't delve into their nuances, undermining their potential significance within civil law. Yet, general agency offers advantages, especially for individuals residing abroad or those unable to manage their affairs due to extended illness, leading to legal ambiguities and inefficiencies due to lack of comprehensive research. Central questions arise regarding the nature and extent of authority delineated in Article 661. Clarification is sought on the scope of property administration, the adminator's authority, and the distinctions between general agency, acts of administration, and special agency. Furthermore, similarities and disparities concerning the termination and revocation of general versus special agency warrant examination. Articles 660 and 661 might not encapsulate the full jurisprudential concept of agency intended by the Iranian Civil Law authors. While aligned in terms of authority limitations with jurisprudential general agency, their effects differ. Jurisprudentially, the agent becomes a substitute for the princi pal in general agency, bound to the principal's interests, unlike the property administration effect in Article 661. This article clarifies that Article 661 doesn't correspond to unconditional agency in jurisprudence, limiting representation to specific, unconstrained conditions and time frames. General agency, entailing "acts of administration," indicates authority within defined parameters. Actions by the adminator must maintain property reasonably, adhering to prudent practices to preserve the property's usual use per the principal's request. The adminator under general agency can execute contracts, collect receivables, and make risk-free investments, safeguarding the owner's funds, but cannot sell or mortgage immovable property without explicit permission. Moreover, providing accounts of management, delivering gains to the owner, completing undertaken acts, and compensating losses due to mismanagement are incumbent on the adminator. Unlike special agency, general agency can be terminated but isn't revoked by the owner's death or incapacity, as it primarily revolves around property administration and continues unless the heir assumes management responsibilities.