مطالعه تطبيقي مهلت عادله

Compartaive Study of Granting Grace Period for Fulfillment of Obligations

يكي از نتايج اصل يگانگي اجراي تعهد و مفاد آن اين است كه طلبكار را نمي‌توان به پذيرش بخشي از موضوع تعهد مجبور كرد،‏ يا تمام يا بخشي از موضوع تعهد را در زماني غير از موعد مقرر پرداخت؛ زيرا پرداخت موضوع يا بخشي از آن در غير موعد مقرر از ارزش آن مي‌كاهد و به زيان طلبكار است. با اين همه،‏ انصاف و عدالت گاه سبب ناديده گرفتن اصل مي‌شود و دادرس را بر آن مي‌دارد كه براي اجراي تعهد،‏ مهلتي به متعهد بدهد تا متعهد به عسر و حرج نيفتد كه اين مهم در ماده 277 ق.م منعكس شده است؛ ولي گستره آن در حقوق ايران مبهم مانده و رويه قضايي رغبتي بدان نشان نداده است. اكنون پرسش اين است كه آيا نهاد مهلت عادله يا اجل قضايي مبتني بر اعساراست يا مبناي گسترده‌تري دارد و بالاخره آيا امكان دادن مهلت عادله يك قاعده است يا يك حكم استثنايي؟ چنين مي‌نمايد كه هرچند دو نهاد اعسار و مهلت عادله با يكديگر متفاوتند،‏ رويه قضايي ميان اين دو نهاد تفاوتي ننهاده است.

One of the results of the single principle of liability fulfillment and its provisions is that the creditor cannot be forced to accept part of the (pecuniary) liability or all or part of the liability paid at a later time than what stipulated, because the fulfillment of the liability or part of it at a later time will reduce the value and will bring loss upon the creditor. However, fair and justice sometimes cause us to ignore this principle and the judge is forced to provide a respite so that the liability could be fulfilled by the indebted to prevent from getting situated in the hardships. This subject matter has been stipulated in the article 277 of the Civil Code, but it has so far remained confusing in the Law of Iran and the judicial procedures are not willing to apply it. Now the question is that: "Is the judicial respite for fulfilling the liability (fair respite or the judicial deadline) is the same as insolvency or different from it? And on which basis? Finally is the fair respite regarded as a rule or exclusion? However, these two are different but it seems that the judicial procedure has not considered any distinction between these two cases