M.A. Thesis:

A Study of the Comparative Office of Curiosity in Iranian and British Law

Abstract(include summary, goals, executive ways and results): In a prying transaction, a person puts the property of another without the permission of the owner and trades for another without the prior permission of the owner or the law. In Imami jurisprudence and Iranian law, the ruling on usury is in most cases non-influence, and in English law, if a person does something for another and does not do it in his own name, although there was no prior authority, only if the intention to represent is enforceable. And by enforcing his action, he becomes the owner's representative, and in British law, like in Iran, such transactions are ineffective. There are differences and similarities in Iranian and British law regarding the management of usurious property and how it is enforced and the conditions of enforcement. Differences such as allowing or denying prying transactions are inherited in Iranian law But it is not inherited in English law, and the original and the representative must be specific. By examining the elements of prying transactions in Iranian law and the opinion of Iranian law regarding these transactions, which considers them ineffective. And by examining the theory of representation and the conditions of enforcement and the conditions of invalidity of the representative in English law, which has customary law and the rules and regulations are often extracted in court cases, by comparing Iranian law which was a written law, try to fill the gaps and Efforts have been made to improve the legal system regarding the management of usurious property in this dissertation. Keywords: transaction, prying transaction, permission, rejection, heirs

Keywords: Keywords: transaction, prying transaction, permission, rejection, heirs