Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Qualities of object in obligations to transfer 1

a. Existence of the thing to be transferred :

Although in the Egyptian law the delivery and not the thing to be delivered is the object, yet seeing that there can be no delivery without a thing to be delivered, the existence of the thing is essential in the Egyptian law as in the French law. When there is an obligation to deliver a specific thing . The thing must be in existence at the date of the contract or the obligation is void for want of an object. But this will not be so when the parties intended to transfer a future thing. If on the other hand, they deal with one another on the footing that the thing existed and it turns out that it did not exist, there is no contract but only the appearance of a contract.

b. Future successions :

The sale of rights under a succession to the estate of a living person is void, even if he consents to the sale while still living.

c. Object must be determinate as to his and quality :

In addition to being an object of commer the object of an obligation must be determinate at least as its kind, and its quality according to the circumstances.
Under the Egyptian code, the property does not pass to the buyer until the things sold have been separated from the bulk by weighing, counting as the case may be, and have actually been delivered to him.

d. Possibility of transfer:

It must be possible to transfer the thing from one of the parties to the other. There can be no valid obligation by A to transfer a thing to B if this is an impossible thing to do it, for example, A sells to B a thing unknown to both of them and have not belonged to B, the sale is void for want of an object:

1. The object must be possible :

In saying as the code do, that object must be possible it is me
possible it is meant that there can be no Jawful obligation to perform a thing which is absolutely impossible for anyone to perform and relative impossibility is not enough. If a man binds himself to do something which is a possible thing to do, although he is not able to do it, there is no reason why he should not pay damages for entering into so foolish a contract.

2. The object must be lawful :

A promise to do anything which is forbiden by law cannot be enforced and we may say that both the cause and the object are here unlawful. Or another way of reaching the same result is to say that an unlawful act cannot be an object of commerce. It is necessary that the act should be expressly forbidden; if the promise is to do something unlawful or immoral it will not be enforced.

3. The object must be personal to the debtor:

By this is meant that it is only a person who has given his consent to be bound by a contract who is bound by it. If A undertakes that Ba do something, then unless he had B's au to act for him, B is not bound. Nor is Ab either, because he did not undertake to do anything. But there is nothing to prevent an agreement that if B does not do what A has undertaken that he shall, or at any rate that if B does not take over the obligation and agree to be bound, he A, will pay the damages.

4.The creditor must have an interest n enforcing the contract : obo

It is a fundamental rule of procedure that the plaintiff must have interest in the result of the suit, otherwise, the performance demand will be rejected. walau ser

Scope of the law of obligation :

It may be said that obligations fall under the head of rights and duties in personam and that it is only. proprietary rights and duties of this class which are generally covered by obligation exists between two persons when
the term or its equivalent is cwing from one to the sons when money to the other,
rights and duties in personam which do not ose or diminish the holder's estate do not fall within the sphere of obligations. Thus the duty of respect and obedience which a son owes to his father is outside the sphere of obligations, but the son's duty to provide the father which alimony is within it. It is true that the term is sometimes broadly used to cover all rights and duties in personam, but such a usage is to be avoided.
Strictly speaking, it is the abstract idea of the legal tie or bond uniting the person of inherence with the person incidence which is designated by the term obligation. The word is, however, sometimes used to signify the right claimed.

0 التعليقات:

Post a Comment