نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال نوزدهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 89، پاییز 1394)

This paper considers the concept of a legal person on the base of temporary legal terminology and the globally accepted notion of The Family to discuss about the acceptability of the legal personality for the family in the legal systems of Iran, Islamic countries, main west and Islamic jurisprudence. Despite the claim that the legal personality for the family has been accepted in some historical, philosophical and legal reports, this paper proves that the origin of such reports is the emotional dissolution of family members in the collective identity of the family that is far from the notion of legal personality in its definite term. Similar to other countries, this identity (not the legal personality) has formed the subject of some Family Acts in our country. According to the Roman-Germanic law, common law, rules of Islamic countries and the position of Islamic law, we have discussed and rejected the statements and various templates that may indicate or form the reason for the benefit of the "Theory of Legal Personality" of the Family”.

Deferred sentence, as a form of community punishment, is an aspect of participatory crime policy and crime control according to which a sentence will not be carried out if the convicted criminal meets certain requirements, such as complying with the conditions of probation. The finality of deferred sentence order depends on whether the court satisfies to comply with the requirements by the criminal or not, which may result to the sentence or punishment. The present article explores the provisions of deferred sentence in the Islamic Penal Code of Iran in the light of a comparative approach to three European legal systems (French, England and Germany) to find similarities and differences between the provisions in question. The article concludes that all provisions in Iran and the mentioned countries seek to meet the necessities of rehabilitative and reparative purposes of criminal sanctions for both offenders and victims.

Passenger, ship and the freight are at risk during the maritime adventure, and some damages may ýoccur for each of them. If the averages shall be deemed just in the ship's account or in the special ýcargo's account or another property on the ship board, which damaged or caused damage, this ýwould be Special Average, and if there is a contribution between others, it would be General ýAverage.ý
According to rule A of the York Antwerp rules 2004, which was adopted with a little ýdifference from section 66 of the English Marine insurance Law, there is a general average ýact when, and only when, any extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure is intentionally and ýreasonably made or incurred for the common safety for the purpose of preserving from peril ýthe property involved in a common maritime adventure. The conditions of general average ýrealization sometimes lead to different ideas, and after that, different cases are brought up. ýExamination of these cases although dissects the conditions provided in rule A, it explains ýother conditions, which are not mirrored by rule A. The definition of general average in section ýý185 of the Iran marine Law (1964) is not accommodating with the definition in rule A. In ýsection 185, there are no hints to the words sacrifice, reasonable and common maritime ýadventure. However, each of these words’ and phrases has special meaning and importance in ýGeneral Average field. All of these reasons require a revision in this rule.

Software is defined a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to achieve a specified objective. Softwares are derived from their creators’ thoughts and the most efficient way is through the intellectual property rights.
First a software is created in written form, the most popular way of supporting it can be through copyright protection. The European Directives expressly recognize software programs as a literary work. But with reference to the provisions of TRIPs agreement and USA and UK patent laws, they could be registered as a patent too. Softwares are likely the strong economic means, which most of the vital projects of the country are fulfiled by them. Thus there must be the possibility for them that, after meeting several criteria, be registered as an invention. For this reason, the European patent office, which previously used to decline software patent offers, after changing its policies, granted patent to the effective technical softwares. By protecting the software as an invention, the inventor has the exclusive right to make use and exclusive offer of his/her invention. The idea of software can be protected only under patent systems, which can be assumed as a difference between patentable software and software as a literary work.
In accordance with Iran’s law, the software, which includes the prescribed conditions in patent laws, will be known as an invention. This procedure is partially in accordance with the USA and Uk patent laws.

In derivative claim, shareholders on behalf of the company and on its name bring an action against a director and managing director who have damaged the company by their acts. In principal_agent relationship, it is an obvious necessity to predict suitable mechanisms to dissolve their conflict of interests. Shareholder’s agency against director is sometimes faced with challenges that make it difficult to perform the rights of the company. In Iran’s law, the agent needs not to possess legal information or to litigate by a lawyer; this may cause the company to lose the case. Moreover, if the company or a shareholder files a suit against negligent director or managing director and does not appropriately prosecute it, the other shareholders can not prosecute it as a derivative action. So the negligent director may conspire with other directors or some shareholders so that they start an action against them and by not adequately defending the rights of the company, bring about its conviction; consequently, by virtue of res judicata rule, litigating against the company will frustrate in the future, and derivative claim would be a device of abuse and offender’s avoidance from liability. In English law, in the same situation, the shareholder or other shareholders are permitted to proceed the litigation brought by the company or one of the shareholders as a derivative suit, and therefore, the abuse of derivative action for damaging the company will be diluted.

Today complex products enter the market that their use requires compliance with the rules and guidelines that must be provided to the buyer. On the other hand, there are many products in the market that are poor, in terms of safety and quality standards, and not only have financial damage to the consumers but also may endanger their lives. Even the standard products may be inherently dangerous or have dangerous side effects. Under this situation, consumers need the essential information for correct use of the property and purchased goods. Vendors and manufacturers are obliged to provide information and guidance on how to use the product and inform the consumers about the defects that they should know. This obligation is taken into consideration in many countries, including the Iranian law and English law. Although the parties do not have to repeat all the information and professional secrets to another in the Iranian and English law, and duty to inform the other is limited to the information contained in the decision to enter into a contract, it is not permissible to hide it.
We can provide information about the scope on the following:A) INFORMATION about the defects of goods;
B) warnings about the potential dangers of goods;
C) instructions for the better use of the goods; and
D) the technical information relating to the characteristics of the goods

According to English Common Law rules, in order to be legally enforceable, a contract must be supported by consideration or be in deed. The rigidity of this doctrine caused the courts to seek to find other criteria for enforceability of promises. The most important of these in England is the Doctrine of Promissory estoppel. Under this doctrine, a promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and in fact, acted on, is binding so far as its terms properly apply. This article seeks to study the doctrine and compare it with similar institutions in Islamic jurisprudence and in Iranian law.