ANGLO-SAKSON VA ISLOM HUQUQ TIZMIDA “LIZING” TUSHUNCHASINING IFODALANISHI
Keywords:
Lizing, Mulk huquqi, Anglo-sakson huquq tizimi, islom huquqi, shartnomaAbstract
Zamonaviy tadqiqotlar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, bozor iqtisodiyoti moslashuvchan, raqobatdosh mahsulot ishlab chiqarishga, ishlab chiqarilayotga tovarlarni talabga mos ravishda ishlab chiqarish vositalariga ega bo‘lishi lozim. Buning uchun korxonalar zamonaviy uskunalar kabi turli xil maxsus qurilmalarga ehtiyoj oshib borishi tabiiy, bu esa katta miqdorda investitsiya talab qiladi. Bu paytda korxonalar uchun yangi investitsiya manbalarini izlab topish zarur. Yuzaga kelgan vaziyatda respublikamiz uchun an’anaviy bo‘lmagan yangi investitsiya manbalarini izlab topish zarur. Oxirgi yillar mobaynida asosiy ishlab chiqarish fondlarini sotishning asosiy shakllariga muqobil sifatida lizing faoliyati namoyon bo‘lmoqda. U tadbirkorlikda yangi, yanada kuchli motivatsion stimullarni yaratadi, ishlab chiqarishga yangi texnikalarni kiritishni tezlashtirishga ko‘maklashadi. Aynan ushbu kurs Ishida lizingni kun tartibidagi asosiy mavzu ekanligidan kelib chiqib, uni milliy va xalqaro asoslar bilan tahlil qilinadi. Lizing nafaqat bizning mamlakatimizda balki, butun dunyoda keng ommalashgan shartnomalardan biri hisoblanadi. Bozor munosabatlari mamlakatimizda turli mulk shakllarining bir xilda amal qilishini ta’minlash bilan birga, mulkiy munosabatlarning kengayishiga, tadbirkorlik faoliyati rivojlanishiga, mulkdorning o‘z mol-mulklarini turli vositalar orqali muomalaga kiritishi uchun asos bo‘lib xizmat qiladi.
References
Minnesota Mining Co. c. National Mining Co., 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 332, 334 (1865). “Uniformity
and certainty in rules of property are often more important and desirable than technical correct-
ness”. Rock Spring Distilling Co. v. Gaines & Co., 246 U.S. 312, 320 (1918) (quoting Layton Pure
Food Co. c. Church & Dwight Co., 182 F. 35, 39 (1910)). See Heyert v. Orange & Rockland
Utils., Inc., 17 N.Y.2d 352, 359-63 (1966). For an application of these ideas in the leasehold
context, see Gruman v. Investors Diversified Servs., Inc., 247 Minn. 502, 509-10, 78 N.W.2d 377,
-82 1956).
E.g., Civale v. Meriden House. Auth., 150 Conn. 594, 192 A.2d 548 (1963); Smithfield
Improvement Co. c. Coley-Bardin, 156 N.C. 255, 72 S.E. 312 (1911); Hart v. Windsor, 12 M. & W. 84, 152 Eng. Rep. 14 (1843); 2 M. FRIEDMAN, LEAsES 392-93 (1974); 2 R. POWELL, REAL PROPERTY – § 233 (1977). See infra notes 225-29 and accompanying text.
Even the innovative Second Restatement of Property did not enlarge the landlord’s duties to maintain the condition of the premises for commercial tenancies to include those duties that it was prescribed for residential tenancies. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF PROPERTY § 5.1 comment b, reporter’s note 2. The present state of judicial and statutory development does not warant such extension.
https://kinglawoffices.com/civil-disputes/common-types-of-leases
5. John A. Humbach. The Common-Law Conception of Leasing: Mitigation, Habitability,
and Dependence of Covenants. – Washington University Law, 1983. – P. 1214.
Muftiy Muhammad Taqiy Usmoniy. – T.: “Azon kitoblari”, 2023. – B. 190.
Shayx Muhammad Sodiq Muhammad Yusuf. Kifoya 3-juz. – T.: “Hilol nashr”, 2018. – B.199.
