فهرست مطالب عبدالرسول دیانی

The condition of the obligation is the amount that the obligee pays for breach of contractual obligations, non-performance or delay in its fulfillment. The aforementioned condition has a dual nature in Iran's legal system. Deterrent description and compensation for breach of covenant and partial compensation for damage. In this research, it is explain the basics of determining the obligation in three categories: moral, Islamic juridical and legal, and social. The condition of the deposit is the factor of guaranteeing the fulfillment of the obligations and the stability of the contracts, and, it includes the partial compensation of damages. Rationality and equal freedom, preferring pure responsibility, guaranteeing the contractual rights, impact on organic contractual solidarity, impact on mutual action based on the purpose of exchange and value, providing the principle of necessity and compensation. The condition of obligation in Islamic jurisprudence has no precedent. The jurisprudential institution of bailment and sale of al-Arabun and the like are different in natur and can only be adapted in the form of an agreed damage condition. After examining the aforementioned principles, this article tries to find out how the institution of the obligation in the form of the terms of the contract has been adapted to the jurisprudence sources and the civil law of Iran, and which of the two criminal or compensatory natures the Iranian legislator has chosen for this condition is in mind. Also, the legal institution of obligation in Iran's legal system can be based on which social foundations.

Protecting the interests related to property requires that people appropriately take benefit from their own property and not interfere with the property of the others. However, in case, people interfere with the property of the others for the sake of the latter rights and interests, they are liable under the subject of the private liability. Because of ambiguity in the legal doctrine and rules with respect to the civil liability deriving from the private liability, the aim of this current paper is to investigate the concept and elements of the civil liability originating from the private liability. This paper, using a descriptive –analytical method as well as library sources and judicial decisions, has investigated the toic. In the end, we conclude, that the concept of liability of the private nuisance within the Iranian law is not appropriately specified. However, using the existing records in the foreign law and proper judicial decisions in this regard, we can specify and declare this concept and its elements.

One of the most common clauses in the contracts is the subsequent condition also named as resolutory condition or dissolving condition. This clause can be inserted in all kinds of contracts including irrevocable and revocable contracts, named or unnamed, unless prohibited by a specific rule. Although the rules of this condition are not mentioned by Iranian civil code, but its detailed samples in this code indicate that automatic dissolving is as a general rule is recognized in all contracts. However, the contractual resolution of contact in the French legal system is regularized as condition résolutoire before condition suspensive in the frame of the mentioned suspended kinds of contract. Regarding nullity doubt of this condition from Islamic law`s point of view, this article intend to evaluate the arguments of advocates of invalidity and correctness separately. Considering the reason verdict for the legitimation of this clause, at least in exchangeable contracts, and its unique function in conclusion of different contract, and also having economic justification, as an evaluator for each argument, has ignored the arguments of invalidity, and regarding influence of French law over Iranian system and because of the lack of strong text in the Islamic law for correctness of this clauses, and by contrast, the existence of principle and similar institutions in the civil code and Islamic law specifically the generals rules related to correctness of conditions inside the contract, this article has considered this condition as correct.

One of the most important questions concerning the remuneration of the advocates in a civil process is to know if the contribution in requisition or a claim by the attorney is prohibitedby Iranian law or not? It has one of the most involved problemes of several cases in the specialized disciplinary court of advocates in Iran. Although in Iranian law this matter is prohibited, in the American law this contributionis completely legal and not prohibited. In contrast, in French law there are some restrictions to this procedure. This article comes to explaine that this restriction is useless and can induce the attorneys to commit the fraud or shortchange. In addition, it is neither against the Islamic law and Iranian civil law, nor the professionals’ ethics regulations of the advocates. By this reason the Iranian law must be modified toward real and transparent dispositions that can authorize the conclusion of the contracts named in USA by Pactum de quota litis between the attorneys and their clients. This article tends also to analyze a concerned case law.

In marriage the husband is obliged to give money as dowry to the woman or to take it as a commitment. There is no legal reason that the dowry shall be the property of the husband. So someone other than husband can give or be obligated to pay dowry. Party''s commitment to pay the dowry involves several legal effects. The basic question in this context is that the commitment of third party is equal to pay dowry by husband himself or it is different? There are many similarities between the two cases، but in dissolution of the marriage commitment and the right of lien، some differences are seen. This article surveys these differences in Imamiyah jurisprudence with emphasizing on Iran''s civil law.

KHOLA is a form of divorce that its motivation is dislike of husband in exchange for compensation to him. What in this paper examines is if a woman be hated of her husband and be satisfied to return all dowries to him or release husband obligation from dowry to divorce her, is it incumbent on the husband to divorce her or not?In this paper, we with design the above question, after express the concepts and survey and critique of different views conclude that due to the lack of strong and valid reason of Quran or Sunnat that implies the ban of incumbency KHOLA divorce on husband on the one hand and so incumbency of prohibition from vice, traditions of the learned in contracts, order of rationality, observance of social interest, rule of the negation distress and constriction with dislike of husband absolutely in exchange for compensation to him and application of divorce it is incumbent on husband to divorce his wife. If he declines, wife is divorced by consent of judge on behalf of refusing husband.With proof of this hypothesis, there is no doubt in discrimination between men and women in divorce, because as a man can divorce his wife with payment of dowry in any reason, woman can also want from her husband to divorce him with any dislike of husband by give or release of dowry.

This article hold to a comparative study in the three legal systems of European, French, American and Iranian concerning the obligation of warranty the hidden defects of products in the sale contracts. In the first instance to determinate the signification of defect and des sanctions foreseen in case of defect of product and finally the elimination of non-liability clauses in the same contract by referring the logic governing on the contract law and the Islamic regulation of Shariat.law, refun