فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی
سال پنجاه و یکم شماره 1 (بهار 1400)

Affiliation of the parties to the transaction is one of the proper conditions of the transaction, from which the maturity, reason and growth of the parties are interpreted; accordingly, the deals of a madman who has no intelligence and understanding is invalidated. But the controversial and challenging issue in this regard relates to the situation of periodic insane transactions during the suspicious period, which has led to different views from jurisprudents and lawyers. After analyzing and analyzing the arguments and judgments of jurists and jurists in an analytical-descriptive manner, and the ability to understand the principle of truth in the event of doubt in the best interests of the interlocutor, the author examined the issue of investigation in two states of struggle and non-combatants. And he believes that in the non-controversial issue of the principle of the authenticity of the law, it is absolutely current, but in the context of the struggle, it is detailed, that in some assumptions, accuracy, and in some other assumptions, it is justified to invalidate Major Edura's transactions during the suspicious period.

Set-off between two mutal debts- that adopted in civil law system, and after the long ups and downs became as a substantive matter, accepted only as a procedural principle in English law too late between two debts caused by contract that contain a sum of money to prevent circuity of claims and it is a counter claim about a liquidated or sometimes unliqiudated sum of money which it time comes to execute and as a principle it only leads to stay of execution of plaintiff's claim. However, the existence of three legal sources of common law, equity and statute in mentioned legal system, led to formation of three distinct types of set-off that each of them is aplicable in it's own certain jurisdiction. These three types of Set-off which has not equivalents in civil law system and are recognized according to forms of relationship between two debts, can be nominated as integrated set-off, independet set-off and connected set-off. In Iranian law, although set-off causes to discharging of two debtors about a liquidated amount of mutal debts that it cames to execute, and extinguishes two debts, the existence of lien and nesessity of invoking in litigation, it bring closer the existent solution in Iranian law to solutions of English law. In this study it will been studied the approach of two mentioned legal systems about the basics of set-off, techniques and it,s differrent usages.

During the 1960s, the shipping industry underwent a tremendous change, well known under the term “the container revolution”. Container brought about enhancement in speed, safety and security of transportation and led to the costs saving as well. The legal issues arising from this phenomenon have been subject to many controversies since the very beginning. The legal nature of container (whether it is deemed as a package or not), the various relationships arising from issuance of several bills of lading (groupage BL and house BLs) for one container, determining the liable person in the case of damages to the cargo (while existing in the sealed container), liability for incorrect stowage of cargo in the container or stowage of container on the deck are the main issues that are analyzed in this article.

Judges, in their position of dispute resolution and justice enforcement, constantly depart the legislators’ intention, through the means of interpretation, towards the valuable goal of justice and righteousness. However, they might walk dissimilar paths in their journey to righteousness which, in turn, might end up being seen as a threat to the respected value of rule of law. However, we might be right in thinking that the judges’ interpretations cohere into a unity, plurality within unity, through the power and coherence resulting from the common sense, which frames their understanding of both law and fact. This confinement to common sense, however, would could have judges surrender to majoritarianism and status quo. If common sense reinforces the status quo, marked by the power of majority, within the realm of judgement, this would hinder one of the demands of judgement, that is, emancipation. However, the position a judge is taking by involving in justice enforcement is not a mere position of dispute resolutions. He will always be availed to draw the just from law, common sense, and other legal rules.

There are many factors in interpretation process of a text and in this article the role of rational evidence -the popular concept in Osoul fiqh- in interpretation of Acts has been analyzed. Although rational evidence in Osoul fiqh has being studied as a source of legislation, it has been considered as a commentator in this article. On one hand utilization of rational evidence in interpretation process is in need of justification of its necessity and statement of its consequences, on the other hand it necessitates answering to the criticism of criticizers. The most decisive dimension of the necessity of this theory is validity of rational evidence because of its certainty. One of the most significant consequences of the theory is the recognition of rational evidence as a source of law. The most important criticisms of this theory is lack of criterion in order to evaluate rational evidence and existence of controversy between rational interpretation and intentionalism theory -which is studied in Hermeneutic-; it may be claimed that acceptation of rational evidence as an external factor in interpretation process prevents commentator from understanding of legislator`s intention. So, we try to refuse the criticism stating rational evidence is not definite and prove that acceptation of the role of rational evidence in interpretation process does not lead to ignorance of legislation and legislator`s place.

As far as the considerations in a contract are concerned, the concept of ‘Contract Equilibrium (CE)’ attempts to follow equality requirements. However, due to the conflicts CE has with voluntarism and its foundations, i.e. liberalism and individualism, it has not been able to find appropriate position in the Classical Contracts Law (CCL). This conflict is not merely with voluntarism itself, but with its subsidiary principles; i.e., freedom of contract and unilateral irrevocability. The principles which due to the pretexts of preserving and re-establishing CE, prevent the interference of the content of the contract. Hence, CE violates the coherence of the law established on the basis of voluntarism. Further, that would not be lucrative to justify the exceptional rules relevant to lesion and change of circumstances via the use of CE. Owing to such contradictions and inefficacies, the aforesaid concept is missing from CCL. After all, CE has currently won a decent position in modified legal order, as a result of putting the mentioned principles under question and drawing on the social thought of contract.

Abstract The tenant has received a wide range of support according to lessor and lessee relations Act 1978; Article 28 of the Act, has expanded its support even after the discharge judgement has been finalized. Based on this Article, discharging verdict will be nullified in the case of specified deadlines (whether contractual or legal) ignorance by lessor, or no request to enforcement of discharged tenant verdict by lessor within a year of verdict announcing. Here are some questions arise about; what are the consequences of nullified verdict in the cases of the contractual relations (lease) and litigation rights and duties of lessor and lessee or even possible new claims? What authorities and impositions are the last Court faced with? In this regard, legislation, judicial procedure and doctrine have not paid much attention to the issue; however, it can be said that there is no nullified verdict in law after nullification; neither objectionable or applicable nor preventing renewed lawsuit proceedings by lessor and finally it’s not citable. Keywords; Res judicta proveritate, discharging verdict, litigation rights, contractual rights, nullified verdict (ineffectiveness verdict), dissociation of hire contract

Third party funding in the arbitration is an emerging phenomenon in the arbitration whereby a third party incurs the costs of arbitration proceedings in exchange for a share of the benefits of an arbitration Judgment that is likely to benefit the protected party. Even a party to the dispute who is in a position that can pay the arbitration costs may conclude a funding agreement with a third party in order to escape the consequences of failure in arbitration. Although the third party has a significant role in enforcing the right of the parties in access to justice, this person is not a party to the dispute and it is evident that in some cases, such as security for costs, an obligation can not be made on her. In addition to the need to disclose a third-party identity by the protected party to the arbitration tribunal, the arbitrator is required to disclose any relationship with this person.

Since about one decade ago, a new and growing trend of negotiating for concluding the “mega-regional trade agreement(s)” has emerged, in which international trade and service are being regulated in parallel with investment-related obligations under one single agreement. It seems that such agreements which currently are being negotiated, or some have even been concluded, are ambitious projects for pursuing the aim of creating an integrated and multilateral system to govern both international trade and investment comprehensively. For this goal to be achieved, it is reasonable to assume that these agreements should, among other things, be primarily capable of providing proper responses to the challenges have been raised in response to the international investment law regime so as to eventually be able to present balanced and legitimate types of international investment agreements which could be embraced by all states. Accordingly, in the present research, through an analysis of the investment-related provisions of the distinguished instances of mega-regionals, we try to explore their capability to overcome the challenges have been raised in the field. The research also addresses the systemic impacts may mega-regionals have on the international investment law’s regime, particularly on each of its sources. Keywords: Regional Trade, International Investment Law, The backlash, Investment Arbitration, mega-regional Trade agreements, Integration.

The jurisdiction may change during the proceedings. One of the causes of this shift is connectivity of claims. This is known as the extension of competence. The extension of jurisdiction occurs because, under the primary jurisdiction rules, jurisdiction is not efficient, effective, appropriate and complete, and the connectivity of claims, as one of the secondary jurisdictional rules, alters the rules for its effectiveness and efficiency. Connectivity creates dependency between claims and thus loses their independence. Whether the connectivity of claims can lead to the extension of inherent jurisdiction is a question that has been studied in a comparative study (Iran and France). It seems that in many cases the connectivity of claims extends the inherent jurisdiction.