عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the challenging issues in the design of banking contracts, especially cooperative agreements, is the issue of contractual terms. These implicit terms are in a way that contrasts with the truth and the concept of cooperative contracts to the point where it derives the original from its original function.
The main question of the article is, what are the criteria for determining the contractual terms of an agreement, and whether in the formulation of bank contracts, there is a lack of opposition to the implicit terms with the truth of the contract?
Using the descriptive method and content analysis, using Imamie jurisprudence sources, the paper examines the following hypothesis: "The most important criterion in distinguishing between the conditions of opposition to the obligation to enter into opposition is the serious intention that the context of the principle of adherence to the contract also emphasizes intention. In accordance with this criterion, the central bank participates in JHA contracts. There are a number of conditions that indicate that there is no serious intention for the contractors. Moreover, by eliminating the concept and the actual concept of the contract, these conditions also violate the customary nature of it, in a way that does not share the custom of participation in this contract. The results of the research indicate that Article 11 of the Central Bank Civic Engagement, Article 8 of the Mudaraba Agreement and the set of terms contained in the Participation Agreements are contractual terms.