فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی
سال چهل و پنجم شماره 1 (بهار 1394)

Extension of the building advance-sale contracts on the one hand and Inadequacy ofthe provisions ofthe Civil Code on protection of building Advance-buyers Before makingits completeand consequentlycausedmany problemsfor peoplein the community (society)، wasforcedthe legislaturetopassthe building advance-sale code in 89 years. The parties of this contracts is said advance-seller and advance-buyer. Enactment of mentioned code is the basis for developments in buildings sale. Among of this developments is theAnticipation of delay penaltyif obligations notdonetimely (duly) by theadvance-seller، necessity of arrangement the official documents for building advance-sale، interpolation codes points in contract and another different sanctions from sanctions in civil code. In this article we will examine the advance-sellers obligations in building advance-sale code and comparison with the sellers obligations in civil code to be explain created development.

Uncertainty and its effect on contracts is one of the issues that has been discussed from different aspects in Islamic and Iranian law. Despite the antiquity and importance of the concept of uncertainty in the law of contract، there are still ambiguities in the writings of Islamic jurists and legal writers with respect to its effects on contracts especially the new ones. This article deals with the concept، scope and effect of uncertainty on contracts in Islamic and Iranian law and in certain areas the English law of uncertainty has been consulted.

It is well understood that the jouisance capacity of of forginer in intellectual property rights has the pardoxal nature. From one side and as a minimalist approache، this Right is gouverned by private law and from other side، based on a maximalist approach; it is under the public- economic law gouvernance. Therfor، its reconnaissance of jouisacne capacity is under the publicah law domain. Meanwhile، it is important to kniw wheter the applicable law on the exercice right is gouverned by the law of the country of orgine or the protection law. The answere to this question is the main concern of this Article.

Nowadays، the status of regulations of securities exchange section in accordance with its huge transactions and its increasing role in countries’ economies has gained particular significance. On the other hand، taking into account that Iran is presently an observer member of WTO and the necessity of it becoming a permanent one in the near future، it is essential to revise and amend its rules and regulations. This article، whit a specific emphasis on market access principle -which is one of the most important principles of general agreement on trade in services of WTO- investigates the status of rules and regulations of securities exchange section as much as possible and provides a set of suggestions to amend these regulations and to achieve more correspondence with WTO regulations.

From the very beginning of attempts to organize Electronic Commerce in international field، the most important subject was categorization of Electronic Commerce under any legal systems of the Organization، i. e. GATT، GATS، TRIPS or a combination of the provisions of the GATT and GATS. The hybrid and TRIPS systems did not have required capacity for the subject matter both theoretically and practically، and in fact the main arguments have been about the coverage of GATT or GATS regulations on E-commerce. The main conflict has arose between USA and some industrialized countries in one hand، and EU and some developing countries on the other hand، in such that the former countries seek to apply GATT regulations on Electronic Commerce and the latter group sees the GATS regulations more appropriate. This conflict of perspectives which is based on especial legal and commercial approaches of parties has been continued. But it seems that the circumstances are more prepared to accept Electronic Commerce as a service، and possibly in future، Electronic Commerce would be categorized under GATS regulations.

En insistant sur la cause motrice et sa relation stricte avec la cause formelle et surtout la cause finale، dans les éléments intrinsèques de la justice naturelle، l’on a suscité la dualité de la Raison et de la justice naturelle dans la pensée des prépondérants de la Raison de source. Car la même insistance empêche la compréhension complète de la manière d’agissement et du contenu de la justice naturelle et c’est parce que l’on ne peut parler du monisme de la raison et de la justice naturelle. La non-dualité se réfère au monisme، dans le fondement de la règle juridique، fondé sur le Dieu، et à l’impossibilité de présenter un critère pour évaluation de la validité du contenu du système juridique. Ainsi، la Raison recule au raison de source; une raison qui se limite à la compréhension، non complète، de la règle naturelle et ne peut engendrer la règle de comportement.

The financial crisis causes many writers to have become concerned about the effectiveness of existing bankruptcy laws، which encompasses both the usefulness of reorganization and liquidation laws، as well as efficiency of the judicial system to uphold the laws in court. This concern is accompanied in our legal system with the privatization movement has resulted many banks owned by the government to be privatized. This let us to conclude that the previous system of bankruptcy may fail to respond to new challenges as overcome by different legal systems around the word. The aim of this paper is scrutinize the bankruptcy of banks in our legal system and propose the amendments required to make an efficient and effective system of bank bankruptcy.

Making a negotiable instrument on behalf is one of the most important issues in negotiable instruments law. Under general rules، the principle has the obligations arising from making negotiable instrument on behalf and agent is not in charge. If the maker wasn’t an agent or he violated the representation area، his act won’t be valid. Now the question is if the agent doesn’t manifest his position، in the issuance of negotiable instrument، or in contrast with his representation claim، he wasn’t an agent، or exceeded his authority، is it possible، despite the general rules، to make the person responsible for the obligations arising from issuance of negotiable instrument. According to the special stuation in representation of companies، these guestions about mentioned companies will increasingly be important issue. This research is intended to provide a proper answer for the issues in the Iranian legal system، which suits the requirements of negotiable instruments and specific provisions of trade law.

Undoubtedly one of the most fundamental issues in the study of law is obligation that has diverse types. One of them is alternative obligation which despite instances in the Iranian legal system; civil code has not mentioned it and has received less attention from authors. Alternative obligation for the parties has several advantages and facilities which include more performance ensure and ease of implementation. The legitimacy of such obligation with some reasons could be proved. Therefore، identification of alternative obligation، principles and specific rules governing its legitimacy، seems necessary. This paper indicates more detailed understanding of alternative obligation، characteristics، and validity of the reasons for its implementation.