چکیده:
در تعاملات بازرگانی، اقتصادی و تجاری، در سطح بنگاه، خریدار، بنگاه- بنگاه و خریدار- بنگاه اسناد تجاری با ایفای نقش راهبردی و تسهیل‌گر میان طرفین معاملات موجب ارتقای سطح اعتماد اجتماعی می‌شود. لذا هدف این مقاله، تبیین تطبیقی ریشه‌یابی شروط محدودکننده و اسقاط مسئولیت در اسناد تجاری با نگاه به کنوانسیون‌های بین المللی و حقوق برخی کشورها است. این پژوهش کیفی از نظر هدف، توصیفی و اکتشافی است که با رویکرد اجتهادی به پاسخ‌یابی به چهار سوال تحقیق می‌پردازد. ازآنجا که داده‌های مورد نیاز بر مبنای چهار سوال با استفاده از مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساختارمند جمع‌آوری شده، تحقیق جنبۀ اکتشافی دارد. فعالیت اجتهادی، با جنبۀ تفهمی و اکتشافی در مقام کشف و تفسیر واقع بر‌می‌آید. و از آنجا که فرآورده‌های اجتهادی تفهیمی است در زمرۀ معرفت‌های اکتسابی قرار می‌گیرد. این تحقیق مسئله‌محور، نشانگر فرآیندی است که از مواجهه محقق با مشکل عملی را شاهد بوده است. مطابق یافته‌های تحقیق مشخص گردید متضامنین اسناد تجاری اعم از مسئولین اصلی و فرعی می‌باشند و علاوه بر مسئولیت تضامنی برای پرداخت وجه مسئولیت قبولی برات توسط براتگیر را تحت شرایطی به عهده دارند و شرط عدم مسئولیت مسئولین اصلی پرداخت وجه سند مثل صادر کننده سفته و براتگیری که برات را قبول نموده است چون برخلاف ذات عمل تجاری مذکور است معتبر نبوده اما اسقاط مسئولیت مسئولین فرعی سند مثل ظهرنویس ویا درج شروط محدود کننده مسئولیت و یا محدود کردن برخی امتیازات دارندگان اسناد تجاری به دلیل عدم مخالفت با ذات عمل تجاری صحیح می‌باشد.
Aim and Introduction. In commercial,economic and commercial interactions,at the firm, buyer, firm-firm and buyer-firm levels, commercial instruments promote a level of social trust by playing a strategic and facilitating role between the parties to the transaction. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative explanation of the roots of restrictive conditions and disclaimers in commercial instruments by looking at international conventions and the laws of some countries. One of the most important advantages of commercial instruments is the joint and several liabilities of the commercial partners against the holder of the instrument, according to which the holder of the instrument can refer to any of them under certain conditions to receive the instrument jointly. The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze how the terms of revocation or limitation of the responsibility of each of the officials of commercial instruments and according to the nature of the relevant business practice in issuing and endorsing and accepting or guaranteeing commercial instruments. In addition to the role of building trust and promoting the level of social capital,these factors facilitate or complicate trade in market interactions between the parties to the business.Methodology. According to the purpose of the research, its approach is qualitative in terms of purpose, descriptive, exploratory and ijtihad. For this reason it is descriptive; because the research community is described as it is. Because the required data is collected based on the following four questions using semi-structured interviews, it is exploratory. 1) What are the requirements for the condition of limitation or revocation of the issuer's liability for your promissory note and check?2) What is the condition for limiting or revoking the liability of the endorser of commercial instruments in comparative law?3) Is the condition of limitation or revocation of liability impossible against the nature of the action and impossible? 4) Is the condition of limiting or revoking the guarantor's liability correct and possible?This study included a detailed study of each of the important research variables and finally a research background on the issue of the present study. In order to achieve the purpose of the research, the method of theme analysis was used. In the descriptive section, by examining the theoretical foundations and research background, to explain the legal views of different nations of the world, comparative terms limiting the responsibility are extracted and analyzed, but according to the exploratory method to increase understanding of the problem, refined variables and relationships between them are identified. Speech analysis methods have been used in the analytical section.Findings. The effect of the terms of termination or limitation of liability on commercial instruments can be explained as follows: By nature, the condition of "absence or waiver of liability" is considered by some to be primarily liability, and the condition of "restrictive" is believed to apply only to the religion of reparation. In order to determine whether the inclusion of the condition of limitation or non-liability of the partners of commercial instruments is the correct condition or not? It has been said that joint and several liabilities are one of the advantages of commercial instruments that the legislator has established in Article 249 of the Commercial Code in order to protect the holder of the instrument and otherwise the parties cannot stipulate it. According to international conventions, the condition of revoking or limiting the liability of the said article only states the rule of joint and several liabilities in your instruments and joint and several liabilities are a kind of privilege that the legislator has considered for the holder of the instrument. It cannot be and the franchisee can waive that privilege. Belief in the invalidity of such conditions is contrary to the principle of the rule of will and freedom of contract and by inferring from Articles 275, 276, 287 and 233 of the Commercial Code, the liability of the officials of the instrument can be limited. The condition for limiting or revoking the liability of the issuer of your documents can vary depending on the type of instrument. The issuer is both responsible for the payment of the instrument and the recipient is responsible for obtaining the acceptance of the instrument before it is accepted by the recipient. Regarding the condition of revoking the liability of the issuer of the promissory note, it should be said that this condition is contrary to the requirements of the nature of the legal action and is void. Regarding the condition of non-liability of the check issuer in paying it, it should be said that the main responsibility for paying the check if the check has not been approved is the responsibility of the check issuer and the condition of canceling the liability is contrary to the nature of legal action. It will be void and void.Discussion and conclusion. That Article 249 of the Commercial Code is a matter of law and it is clear that this article only states the rule of joint and several in your instruments and joint and several liability is a kind of privilege that the legislator has given to the holder of the instrument and the aspect of public order does not and is not considered a rule of thumb - the owner of the license can waive that privilege. The condition for limiting or revoking the liability of the signatories of commercial instruments is provided for in international conventions and in the Law of Barwat and British promissory notes. Although unconditional waiver is accepted in English law, there are some restrictions on promissory notes. It is also accepted in the mentioned conventions as long as the dismissal is not contrary to the requirements of the nature of the action.The Iranian Commercial Code, like the French Commercial Code, does not have a definite and specific regulation regarding the cancellation or non-liability of the parties to the commercial instruments, but it pays attention to what is stated in international conventions and the principles governing contracts and all kinds of valid and invalid conditions in civil law.
خلاصه ماشینی:
مطابق يافته هاي تحقيق مشخص گرديد متضامنين اسناد تجاري اعم از مسئولين اصلي و فرعي ميباشند و علاوه بر مسئوليت تضامني براي پرداخت وجه مسئوليت قبولي برات توسط براتگير را تحت شرايطي به عهده دارند و شرط عدم مسئوليت مسئولين اصلي پرداخت وجه سند مثل صادر کننده سفته و براتگيري که برات را قبول نموده است چون برخلاف ذات عمل تجاري مذکور است معتبر نبوده اما اسقاط مسئوليت مسئولين فرعي سند مثل ظهرنويس و يا درج شروط محدود کننده مسئوليت و يا محدود کردن برخي امتيازات دارندگان اسناد تجاري به دليل عدم مخالفت با ذات عمل تجاري صحيح است .
بررسي تطبيقي شرط اسقاط يا تحديد مسئوليت هريک از متضامنين اسناد تجاري اعم از صادر کننده و ظهرنويس و محال عليه و قبول کننده برات و تاييد کننده چک و ضامنين آنها در هريک از اسناد تجاري برات و سفته و چک به طور مجزي با رويکرد تطبيقي از نظر حقوق انگلستان و فرانسه علاوه بر کنوانسيون هاي ژنو ١٩٣٠ و ١٩٣١ و آنسيترال و ارائه چند پيشنهاد در موارد سکوت ، اجمال و ابهام قانون تجارت از نوآوريهاي اين تحقيق ميباشد [٢].
صرف نظر از اينکه از نظر کنوانسيون هاي بين المللي شرط اسقاط يا تحديد مسئوليت به شرحي که خواهد آمد پذيرفته شده است ، با دقت معلوم ميشود که ماده مزبور فقط قاعده تضامن را در اسناد براتي بيان ميکند و مسئوليت تضامني يک نوع امتيازي است که قانون گذار براي دارنده سند در نظر گرفته است و جنبه نظم عمومي نداشته و از قواعد آمره ٥ محسوب نميشود [٢٤] و صاحب امتياز ميتواند از آن امتياز صرف نظر نمايد.
(
, 
, 
)
