محسن ایزانلو

In common law legal systems as well as transnational soft laws (such as transnational commercial law, international arbitration law, etc.), this general principle is accepted that the violation of parties in the matter related to the dispute may lead to depriving them of their right to hearing their lawsuits. This principle is called the principle of prohibition of invoking one's illegal act in continental Europe, and in Common Law, which is the origin of the legal rules related to this principle, it is called the Theory of Clean Hands. Recently the issue of acceptance of this theory in Iranian law and Islamic jurisprudence has been raised by several authors, And as a ritual rule, various bases have been presented to justify it. In the present article, the authors are trying to analyze the foundations of this theory and philosophically explore its basic norms. Some consider the agenda of this principle as the moral norm of the necessity of protecting the moral integrity of the courts, Some consider the norm of "You are the same" as its basis. The mentioned moral norm prevents people from complaining and protesting against those who commit a similar or related offense to what the complainants/protesters have already committed.

Blocking statutes are enacted to neutralize the effects of third-country extraterritorial laws and, on the one hand, prohibit all covered persons from complying with these laws and, on the other hand, provide protective measures to protect covered persons against damages caused by non-compliance. The European Union passed the Blocking Regulation to counteract the effects of US unilateral sanctions against Iran, Libya, and Cuba. The Regulation was amended after the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA, then, another US sanction law against Iran was blocked. Currently, the covered persons face a dilemma; they are punished by American authorities in the case of violating US extraterritorial sanctions in their contractual relations with US-sanctioned operators. In return,they also may be fined by their countries if they comply with the Blocked Laws because of violating the Blocking Regulation. The hypothesis of the article is that irrespective of applying administrative and criminal sanctions in the case of violation of the Blocking Regulation by the covered persons, from the civil viewpoint, the sanctioned person being a party to the contract with covered persons can litigate and invoke this Regulation against them. The claimant can ask the dispute resolution tribunals to enforce the covered undertaking.

In the insurance contract, assuming the fulfillment of the contractual conditions, the insurer is obliged to fulfill his obligation, to compensate the loss. Sometimes, despite the fulfillment of the conditions for claiming contractual rights for the policyholder (realization of contractual risk), based on the fulfillment of a matter that is typically a breach of obligation by the policyholder, the insurer is released from its obligation, which is interpreted as "Forfeiture ". The basis of this fall of the right can be according to the law or contractual condition. In foreign legal systems, the validity of the clause in the insurance contract is limited to specific cases and subject to compliance with conditions. In French law, the condition of "Forfeiture" is subject to limitations, both in terms of nature and form. In terms of form, the clause must be binding, in the sense that the insured must know precisely which of his obligations the forfeiture of the right is. It should also be written in clear and bold terms. From a substantive point of view, according to the law of December 31, 1989, it is effective only when the insurer proves that the loss occurred as a result of the policyholder's non-obligation. In the law of England, due to the seriousness of the guarantee of the implementation of the breach of warranty in the law of 1906, fundamental reforms were made in the insurance law of 2015 and in articles 10 and 11 of the insurance law, it is stipulated that the breach of the warranty does not exempt the insurer from the obligation to compensate the damage, but with the breach of the warranty, the insurer's obligation to will be suspended. In addition, the insurer cannot refuse to compensate the damage by using the breach of warranty even if it is not related to the damage. In Iranian law, in Article 15 of the Insurance Law, this ruling is provided for the obligation to inform about the occurrence of an accident and to try to deal with the damage, but regarding whether the parties to the insurance contract can agree on this in other cases as well, or it should be considered limited to legally authorized cases, there is no text. In addition, the law is silent about the legal nature of this condition. The importance of examining the "condition of Forfeiture" is that such a condition is widely used by insurers in insurance contracts. While the provisions of this condition, the collapse of the most important effect of the insurance contract (one of its two cases); It means "Insurer's obligation to compensate". In addition, the explanation of the legal nature of this performance guarantee can help to explain the various aspects of this institution and the conditions of its impact on the legal relationship of the parties and adjust the superior position of the insurer in concluding the contract according to the supplementary nature of the insurance contract. The current research is an applied research and the method of collecting information is a library. The author's research method is descriptive, analytical and critical. The fundamental question is what is the legal nature of the " Forfeiture" in insurance contracts; furthermore, what are its validity conditions? It seems that the nature of this clause is "Falling Obligation" and can be analyzed in the form of causes of falling of obligations and it cannot be considered as a "Exclusion Clause" and the validity of this clause must be confirmed in the insurance contract based on the principle of contractual freedom. This research work is considered fundamental and at the same time practical, which tries to be discussed with an analytical approach and with descriptive, qualitative aspects and using library data to the extent necessary to conduct the research. In order to achieve this, first, according to the background, the required sources were prepared from Persian, English and French legal books and articles, and then according to their content and the analysis of the contents, the desired results, including the explanation of the legal nature of Clause Forfeiture in The insurance contract and its credit terms and conditions were obtained.

One of the important issues which is usually neglected in the Iranian Legal literature is the impact of wrongdoing on rights of the wrongdoer from which would other they would have benefited. In the present paper we endeavor to address the complex issues by using analytical-library method which pertains to the legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” what are the cases and examples and what is its legal effect. We have sought to base the said doctrine on Islamic canons and maxims, thus justifying its application under Iranian positive law. In response to the said questions and by using and analyzing the Islamic documents we came to the conclusion that the doctrine of clean hands under certain conditions has no inconsistency with the foundations of our legal system, and there exists adequate remedies for said doctrine in order to be applied.

In this article, an attempt has been made to analyze the views of judges and legal writers on the functions of the principle of subrogation in insurance and the views of proponents and opponents.

The present study is a comparative study that was compiled using the library method and referring to legal texts and related sources, especially judicial opinions.

The insurance contract as a credit nature and insurance as an industry are based on the principles that together, form the insurance institution and directs it to its intended purpose. Article 30 of the Insurance Law refers to the principle of subrogation, which is one of the practical principles governing compensation insurance. That is to say, if a risk occurs under the insurance coverage as a result of personal harm and if the risk occurs, the insurer must compensate for the damage according to the insurance contract. Subsequently, the insurer will have the right to refer to the cause of the loss in order to recover the amounts paid by the insurer. The principle of the insurer's subrogation is a function of the principle of compensation. This means that the insurer does not benefit from the occurrence of the loss and the loser is not unnecessarily absolved of the responsibility that is the direct result of his/her act or omission of the harmful act, and of course the insurer should not make a bonanza profit. The result of this triangle of right for the insurer will be accompanied by a fall in the premium due to the loss factor that all of which have led to the principle of subrogation in insurance. The deputy is the only principle whose existence has been criticized in insurance, and in other words, not only its "principle" as a necessity, but also its basis as an advantage has been questioned.

The regulation of the three legal relationships among the people involved in insurance- the insurer, the insuree and the Cause of loss- is found in the principle of subrogation and its necessity for the insurance industry is inevitable. It should not be considered unnecessary to be removed. Instead, costs should be reduced by modifying and simplifying how to get to the deputy including the provision of administrative and non-judicial subrogation instead of judicial formalities which preserve its benefits and finally, the subrogation functions were achieved. It is expedient to have a subrogation in insurance to the extent that this right can be negligently interpreted as a "principle". Although the title of the principle for subrogation differs from what is discussed in other insurance principles, but opponents - whether in the position of a principle or in the position of right- is a replacement. It is basically not subrogation in this contract. If a comprehensive set of rules for succession in order to facilitate the recovery of funds from the perpetrators of the accident is prepared and approved, such as banning car traffic before paying damages or an extraordinary review of insurance replacement cases and the issuance of collateral without possible damages it can reduce the problems in reclaiming damages.

"Third Party Ownership" is one of the restraint of Trade Law in Sport, whereby a third party acquires all or part of the player's economic rights for financing the player or injecting cash into the club. Contrary to  the common perception in the field, this mechanism does not grant the decision-making power of the contract to a third party, and therefore, this will not lead to a type of slavery or curtail a player’s freedom. As the result, it will not result in the third party’s interference in implementation of the contract which is in breach of Article 960 of the Civil Code and Article 18 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In practice, various countries adopted different approached to the validity of this mechanism. The present study shows that by relying on economic efficiency and justice this mechanism merely entitles a third party to the player’s incomes in his future transfers without any unfair wealth transfer to third parties. FIFA regulations do not prohibit any investment by a third party, but they have banned him from influencing over club’s decisions. The mechanism could be introduced as a business model for football.

Double insurance is provided when several insurers cover the same property against identical risk with respect to the same period. Unlike other legal systems, Iran act insurance does not have any explicit provision about status of double insurance and in this respect different opinions have been raised by legal writers. However, assuming the validity of multiple insurance, this issue is brings up that how the insured is entitled to claim against insurers. Some believe that each insurer will be liable for a rateable proportion only, and some other have an opinion that the insured may recover the full amount of his loss from whichever insurer or insurers he chooses. It seems, that just solution is final devided of liability between insurers and in the other word is the right of contribution that is defined as the right of insurers who have paid a loss to recover a proportionate amount from other insurers who are also liable for the same loss.

The authority of a captain is not limited to the technical management of the ship during the voyage and the administrative duties concerning the interaction with the administrative organizations located in commercial ports. The captain has, moreover, a special place arising from his role in the maritime trade scene and his role in managing the ship that allows him  to act on behalf of the maritime carriers in the transaction or to take other necessary measures in crew recruitment, ship repair, fulfillment of basic needs, etc. in emergencies where the completion of the voyage is subject to prompt action by the captain. The captain's authority is sometimes deemed to stem from the legitimate and conventional appearance and, consequently, from the reasonable perception created for others. However, he does not have such authority in reality. So, the question arises as to whether the shipowner's defense that captain has acted beyond his authority, if proven, is admissible and precludes the legitimate expectations of the other party to the contract about the owner’s commitment to the consequences of the captain’s acts. In other words, can the captain's authority be extended and can he be considered the shipowner’s agent? In response to this question, legal doctrine and jurisprudence have suggested the apparent agency of the captain in support of third parties in good faith who deal with the captain by trusting in the appearance and considering his authoritativeness. In this study, this type of agency of the captain in his interventions is examined in the domestic and foreign legal system. The results indicate that the apparent agency of the captain is represented mainly in his transactions such as ship sales and mortgages, cargo sales and mortgages, ship rental, crew recruitment, and bill of lading. The apparent agency leads to the liability of the ship owner making him responsible for fulfilling obligations arising from the acts of the apparent agent. Although the advancement of knowledge and the development of communication tools in recent years have made it possible to communicate with the owner and ask him for instructions, the notion of the impossibility of extraordinary intervention of the captain as an apparent agent is hardly acceptable. Accordingly, the legal doctrine today emphasizes the apparent agency of the captain, focusing on his specific role and scope of authority as one of the major bases of the apparent agency. In line with the legal literature, the rulings of foreign courts on a variety of issues uphold the captain's authority to steer ships from the port of loading to the port of discharge. The captain's intervention on behalf of the shipowner is sometimes expanded to the point where court documents are sent to him rather than to the owner or even where he is considered a defendant himself, and sparing him from this status is ruled to be void. Although the legal systems has  come to hold the view that the captain lacks the authority to sell the ship, his authority in mortgaging the ship and cargo is a point of contention, each legal system having  its own position, with minor disagreements within each system. Following Article 28 of the Iranian Amendment to the Maritime Act approved on 9/18/2012, which has replaced Article 89 of the Iranian Maritime Act, obtaining permission from the shipowner, the sender and the cargo owner is a necessary condition for mortgaging the ship. Although the legislature may appear to want to reduce the captain's authority and, consequently, to strip him of his apparent agency, according to the Paragraph A of the above-mentioned article, the captain is still eligible to receive a loan if necessary funds are not provided by the owner or in necessities when urgent interventions are necessary. Moreover, according to Article 33 of the Amendment to the Maritime Act, which has replaced Article 94 of the Maritime Act, the deficiency of the latter, which failed to determine the legal status of the unjustified sale of the cargo, has been eliminated, and by confirming its validity, the apparent agency of the captain in the sale of cargo has been explicitly acknowledged.This agency can also be sustained in concluding a lease in the event of an emergency. Besides, due to the special place of the ship certificate of registry in establishing the ownership in some legal systems such as the French Law, if the tenant's name is not mentioned in the bill of lading, the owner, being named in the ship certification of registry, is considered responsible for the captain's obligations. The apparent agency of the captain in issuing the bill of lading now enjoys an almost consensual endorsement among legal systems of the world.

Overbooking flights are a common practice of the airline industry. This business practice aims at ensuring that airplanes fly at their full capacity. However, due to boilerplate contracts that bury the relevant clause, most passengers are shocked when they are denied boarding due to the lack of passenger capacity. This article looks at the legal aspects of overbooking in three jurisdictions: Iran, France, and the U.S. It studies the legal basis of overbooking in each jurisdiction and analyzes the remedies each system offers passengers. While the policy of ensuring a functioning airline industry requires the practice of overbooking, states can provide a higher degree of legal protection for passengers. This article suggests that Iran's legal system must improve its current requirement for airlines' contracts of carriage. Providing a comprehensive guideline on the passengers' rights in case of overbooking must become mandatory for airlines. It should also require airlines to be transparent about all of their policies and ensure that the overbooking clause in the contract of carriage is as conspicuous as possible.

Bodily damage is one of the damages in the realm of civil liability. Compensation is considered to be one of the main features of philosophy of being of tort law. Physical damage includes any kind of diya (financial compensation)or arsh (the compensation specified in Islamic law to be paid to the victim or his heirs) caused by any kind of damage to the body such as fractures, defects and disability of the organ, whether partial or general - temporary or permanent, diya of death and treatment costs. It appears that legal systems have different approaches toward the issue and follow different principles for compensable damages. According to the findings of this article –that is conducted in a descriptive-analytic-comparative method- the principle in Iranian and French law is full compensation for these damages. In English law, the purpose of civil liability is not to compensate all damages and for all persons and the courts try to limit the civil liability to compensation of certain damages for certain individuals. In Islamic law, acceptance a principle as to the necessity of compensation for all damages and the expansion of the scope of compensable losses does not contradict the holy law of Islam. However, it cannot be claimed with certainty that it is necessary to accept the principle of compensation for all damages in Islamic jurisprudence.

The Judicial Penalty is an effective legal institution in order to execution of the civil judgments. This concept belongs to Civil Law. There is an article in UNIDROIT Principles which deals with this penalty. Given the lack of recognition of this concept in some countries, there are some questions about enforcement of foreign judgments that include such penalty. This mechanism is used for execution of all of the judgments in French law. But, the Iranian courts do not use this measure, because there are some disagreements on abrogation of articles 729 and 730 of the former Civil Procedure Code (17 September 1939) and the lack of any equivalent article in later Civil Procedure Code (9 April 2000). The authors of this article are of the opinion that the said legal institution is not abrogated in Iranian law and it can be used for execution of the civil judgments.

One of the ambiguities existing in the insurance contract is the quiddity and nature of the insurer's liability in the insurance contract, which means whether insurer's payments is of the nature of a demand insured or real damage. The nature of the insurer's liability has a direct effect on the possibility of insured's referring to the tortfeasor and on the possibility of accumulating the damage imposer’s liability and insurer's liability (due to differences in origin). In this way, if the nature of the payments that the insurance company pays to the insured or the stakeholder is a credit (or savings or replacement of the contract), the injured party (the insured), after obtaining the insurance money from the insurer pursuant to contract, can refer to the tortfeasor because of the difference in the origin of liability (contractual and forcible) and the responsible person (insurance company and tortfeasor).

There are several legal systems to compensate for the insured’s losses, the most important of which include: 1. Selection: This means that the damaged party can refer to one of the responsible agents (insurer or tortfeasor) at his/her own selection. 2. Accumulation of benefits: This system is operative according to the principle of capital and, thereby, the damaged insured can also refer to the contractual legal system in addition to entitlement to refer to the forcible liability. 3. Recoupment: The contractual liability (insurer) can refer to the forcible liability after the loss and damage was compensated for and demand the tortfeasor for compensation for the payment already incurred. 4. Relieving the Tortfeasor’s liability: This means that neither of the parties are entitled to refer to the tortfeasor (Cane, 2006: 377; Lewis, 1998: 17). The principle of subrogation, which has been approved by Iranian legislatures, is a subset of the recoupment system and entails the fact that the insurer should refer to the tortfeasor while the damage was compensated for and amount paid to the insured should be claimed for refund from the tortfeasor. In domestic law, the principle of subrogation is viewed to be based on the rule of "double compensation prohibition " and "prohibition of unjust ownership" and is interpreted on the basis of recognizing the insurer's payment to the insured as "damages". In other words, when the insurer compensates for the insured's loss by paying for the damages, the insured can no longer refer to the insurer because one of the pillars of the claim is the civil liability of damages survival. Thus, when the insured's damages were paid by the insurer, the insured does not have the right to refer to the tortfeasor but the insurer can refer to the tortfeasor on behalf of him/her (Babaee, 2005: 25; Taheri, 2008: 22). In this research, for the following reasons, it was proved that the nature of the insurer's payment has been a "credit" and the above argument is not correct. First, according to Article 1 of the Insurance Law in 1937, insurance is a commutative contract and the insurer's indemnity is paid for the insurance premiums paid by the insured. In addition, the insurer's obligation originates from the insurance contract; therefore, the nature of the insurer's liability is contractual credit. Second, according to Article 30 of the Insurance Law in 1937, when a payment is settled by the insurer, the insurer has the right to refer to the tortfeasor on behalf of the insured. If, according to the well-known theory of nature of compensation in insurance, is assumed to be damage and reference to the tortfeasor entails the rule of "prohibition of double compensation", such a right will not be considered either for his/her subrogation (insurer) because the injured party’s claims are compensated for by the insurer’s compensation and it is not possible any longer to refer to the tortfeasor (originally or by subrogation). As a result, the nature of the insurer's payment should be considered to be based on credit and contract and there should be the possibility of referring to the tortfeasor on behalf of the insured. In other words, knowing the "nature" of the insurer's payment is the requirement for the justification of "principle of subrogation". Third, at the end of Article 30 of the Insurance Law in 1937, the legislator states that "the insurer will be the subrogation of the insured and if the insured takes any action contrary to the contract, s/he will be considered liable to the insurer". Any action contrary to the insured’s right, such as release from an obligation third party responsible and bringing an action for damage against the third party responsible by the insured (original) is valid when s/he has the right to quittance or initiation of lawsuit. If the nature of the insurer’s liability is damage and the insured has no right against the tortfeasor, how can s/he acquit the tortfeasor or claim any payment from him? Fourth, in some legal systems, such as the legal systems of the United States and Ireland, the injured party has the possibility to refer both to the operating losses (tortfeasor) and the insurer, and the system of "Collateral Benefits" is applied (English Law Commission's Consultation paper, 1997, No. 147, "Damages for Personal Injury: Collateral Benefits": P 75, At: www.lawcom.gov.uk). This suggests that the principle of subrogation is not due to the nature of damaging the insured's civil liability. What the insurer pays to the insured is the "credit" of the insured and the enforcement of the contract by the insurer; and the insured’s right to refer to the tortfeasor to receive "indemnity" is retained (which is referred to the tortfeasor by the insured in the "collateral benefits" system or by the insurer in the "recoupment" system on behalf of the insured.

The nature of the insurer's liability in the insurance contract is demand and contractual. In our law, the "Recoupment" system is chosen on how to refer to the tortfeasor, and the insurer, after being compensated according to the insurance contract for civil liability and to compensate for the power of subrogation from the insured, refers to the tortfeasor. Knowing payment, the "nature" of the insurer's liability, the possibility of applying any of the Selection systems, Accumulation of Benefits, the Recoupment and the Relieving the Tortfeasor’s liability can be applied according to the requirements of time and place. It is suggested that the "Accumulation of Benefits" system be specifically reviewed by the legislator.

Maritime liens are real security against the maritime estate and subject of the special system of payment and particular procedural rules which encourage the maritime creditors to help the vessels for continuing the voyage by providing the maritime liens and enforcing them immediately. In the contrary, procedure of bankruptcy include specific rules in relation with liquidation and reorganization of bankrupt which are governed the stay of proceedings against the debtor and collective proceedings which could make some conflicts in enforcement of maritime liens. This paper deals with the variety kinds of these conflicts and provides the manners of solving them through the analytical and descriptive method and by using the library resources and the comparative study in legal system of Iran, England, and France. Finally, regarding being the special law of each systems of bankruptcy and maritime, it seems necessary to add a rule that is overriding in this matter. In this respect, it is proposed that security rights over the ships are addressed within the particular regime they belong to, regardless of the time of their creation (before or after the bankruptcy procedure over the shipowner commenced).

The general rule in Common Law is that, any person may obtain different insurance policies for same subject matter and same risk and he is free to claim payment from all insurers in a way he thinks proper, however; the insurer, who has compensated damage and loss, can call on other insurers to bear their share of loss, this right is called the principle of Contribution. When an insurer is entitled to recover contribution from other insurers, there is a question of how that contribution is to be assessed, there is three methods of calculation. 1. Maximum Potential Liability 2. Independent Actual Liability 3. Common Liability

Iran and the U.S. are among the not-so-many countries in the world which still assign some role to reciprocity in their respective laws of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The doubts about what this role exactly is in each case and how political tensions between the two countries has affected, or might affect, the way each of them applies its rule of reciprocity to the judgments rendered by the other’s courts specifically makes a detailed analysis of these two legal systems and their interaction, what this article attempts, worthwhile. Sketching a basic view of reciprocity as a concept and its current global status, the first chapter provides an introduction to the topic. The next two chapters explore the laws of the U.S. and Iran, respectively, on reciprocity, addressing their approaches to a number of practical issues ensuing from their commitment to this rule. The fourth chapter examines each country’ application of its own version of the rule to its specific relation with the other. Toward this end, it both studies the actual decisions of Iranian and the U.S. courts that involved this matter and contemplates other, possible scenarios in deciding the reciprocity questions in light of the interpretive possibilities that the two legal systems open up.

With the advancement of technology, the production of new products, and the creation of new activities, the community is sometimes exposed to serious risks. If these risks occur, considerable costs should be consumed to compensate them and, sometimes, the damage is irreversible. In the case of facing such dangers, the precautionary principle and the adoption of precautionary measures are deployed. This principle has been used in recent decades in domestic law, international procedures, and judicial procedures. In this article, by reviewing different votes issued in this regard in foreign courts, in particular, French courts, an attempt was made to examine the different aspects of this principle. The principle of precaution, as a legal and political principle, is used in two situations: 1) before the occurrence of damage 2) after the occurrence of damage. Thus, given the dual function of the precautionary principle, the two preventive and compensatory roles can be assumed for this principle, respectively. However, it is worth mentioning that the obligation to compensate for financial losses is only possible in the second case. Key words: The precautionary principle, Civil liability, Preventive role, Compensatory role

The letter of indemnity is a contract of indemnity. This letter use in the field of transportation of goods in the international commercial contracts and sea transport. The right use of these letters can lead to acceleration and facilitate of economic exchanges and economy of the transactions. On the other hand, it is possible that these letters use as an instrument for fraud and threating the security of economic transaction. For this reason there are many doubts and diversity of opinions about validity of these letters. In order to specify the concept of this letter, its functions and validity, this survey by a descriptive and analysis method will discuss the concept of this tool. Then the legal nature and the validity of this letter will be study and the final discussion will be appropriated to considering its functions.

Traditionally, lawyers believe that the arbitration agreement may not extend to the third parties by referring to the “privity of contract rule”. Actually in many international cases, there are various opinions about the extension of the arbitration to the persons who never signed the arbitration agreement and they are non-signatories. Estoppel rule as the main element of the “estoppel Doctrine on the extension of arbitration” is one of the most famous legal rules and regulations of the common law system, for years has appeared and illuminated in arbitration issues. Despite the importance of estoppel rule and its prevalence in international proceedings, there are no proper researches about the essence and effects of this rule. This comparative study on extension of arbitration agreement to the third parties with emphasis on the estoppel doctrine is one of the newest and practical issues may be the point of challenges between common law and statutory law legal systems.

Deviation doctrine is a famous doctrine in maritime law and marine insurance, according to which geographical deviation of carrier leads to various effects: Justifiable deviation constitutes a cause of exception of liability of the carrier; unjustifiable deviation aggravates the liability of carrier. In marine insurance, unjustifiable deviation discharges the insurer. International conventions, often, contain some provisions on justifiable deviation, but are silent about unjustifiable deviation. There are, thus, some controversies about the effects of unjustifiable deviation in national laws. In common law, such deviation aggravates the liability of carrier. In French law, it does not affect the liability of carrier per se. It seems that the common law approach is more acceptable in Iranian law as, on the one hand, it constitutes a lex maritima and is, on the other hand, similar to the Sharia position regarding the liability of bailees. In this article, the effects of justifiable and unjustifiable deviation have been examined in international conventions, Iranian, English, French and American laws. Besides, this article reviews liberty clauses and the effects of deviation in marine insurance under two separate sections.

In addition to option clause and penalty clause in a contract, some other conditions may be included in contracts that can be regarded as non-penalty clause. This clause, from one hand, is related to requirements regarding damages, such as penalty clause, limitation of liability and non-liability requirements and from the other hand to requirements regarding rescission. Under this clause, obligor may refuse to perform the obligation and rescind the contract. However, in exchange, as the case may be, he/she must pay damages to the other party. This clause is different from the penalty clause because it aims to establish the right to fail to perform and in fact the right to termination. Accordingly, non-penalty clause involves some option clause whose duration needs to be specified. This term may be expressed or implied. This article deals with different aspects of such clauses.