نشریه مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر
پیاپی 24 (پاییز 1400)

One of the most important requirements for claiming damages is certainty of damages. In order to be able to claim a damage, it is not enough to speculate it, but it is necessary to determine damages with certainty. Loss of use is such damages the occurrence of which is certain but the amount of damage is uncertain. This kind of damage often occurs in civil responsibility and the case of accidents. In our legal system, despite its importance and extensive use, this kind of damage has not yet been analyzed by the legal authors. In this article seeks to introduce this damage with pros and cons of acceptability of it and also the most important differences between loss of use and loss of profit and the common methods of assessing and calculating of this damage. Findings of this research show that the acceptance of this damage is necessary to achieve the fundamental “principle of full compensation” in all legal systems and it does not seem to be a barrier for accepting it in our legal system, particularly based on the articles 328 & 331 of civil code.

One of the most significant issues concerning breach of contract is the hierarchy between the remedies and the possibility of their change. This article examines the hierarchy of remedies and an aggrieved party’s ability to change his initially-sought remedy to another one. While international instruments of contract law such as the Principles of European Contract Law and UNIDROIT Principles have addressed some aspects of the issue, the Iranian Civil Code is silent on the matter. Although the legal literature addresses some features of the hierarchy of remedies, it has not touched upon the change of a remedy.  This article investigates the issue in relation to main remedies including specific performance, termination, of contract, damages, and price reduction. It is a truism that the findings of the research are generalizable to the context of domestic contracts as well as international ones, and its practical usefulness is undeniable in contract litigations.

Longitudinal plurality of the two states' plurality "cause and steward" and "plurality of causes "is conceivable. To consider a Sponsor Factor, if it is the Factor of "causes", Islamic jurists have referred to both the well-known theory of "the cause of front-impact" and "the stronger cause from steward". Due to the lack of clear criteria for referring to these two theories to explain the actual specific position of each, there is a kind of interference in the use of these two theories. Hence, whenever there are common principles, by resorting to these two theories, sometimes we can have verdict to guarantee "the cause of front-impact" and "the stronger cause from steward". This article seeks to examine the basis and reasons for retaining each of these two theories, explain the actual position of the two theories. It is concluded that the relationship between these two theories is defined as " public and private of absolute", "the cause of front-impact" and "the stronger cause from steward" . Hence, we can say that in theory the criterion of liability is “being strong” - meaning that in the presence of the theory of "the stronger factor", "the cause of front-impact" is not necessarily invoked.

One of the issues affecting the realization of economic resilience in Iranian system is the violation of the competition between merchants by dumping. Dumping means selling a product in a foreign market at a lower price than its final cost or the normal price or the cost/price of a similar product in the supplier country, with the aim of gaining an advantage in competing with other suppliers of the same product. Dumping is an instrument for violation of market competitiveness and undermining national production and is therefore considered as an important obstacle against the realization of economic resilience. Thus, for anti-dumping practices, the solutions based on legal and Islamic jurisprudential should be presented to support the economic system and national production and realization of the economic resilience. Therefore, in Iranian law, solutions such as counter-vailing duty, quotas, anti-circumvention and etc. have been proposed as ways of maintaining the health of the economy and providing the basis for the abandonment of dumping activities. In Shia Islamic jurisprudence, sanctions such as compensation and civil liability based on rule "La-Zarar", punishment of the disruptors in the health of the economic system and refund of the profits from dumping activities have been considered as ways of preventing dumping, upgrading the health of the economic system and guaranteeing the resilience of the economy.

Nowadays, party autonomy in determination of arbitration procedural law becomes a guiding principle in international commercial arbitration. The principle is recognized not only by national laws, but also by international institutions’ rules and provisions. In fact, when the parties choose the arbitration mechanism as a dispute resolution method, they enjoy wide freedom to determine the procedural law which is followed by arbitrators. But absolute freedom for parties will breach the due process of arbitration and will also violate public policy. So they are not completely free to eliminate a system of law or certain elements of a system of law. Actually their freedom is limited to observing mandatory rules of the seat of arbitration and the place of enforcing of arbitral award. Also, parties have to adhere to the principles of natural justice to protect the public policy. Additionally, after beginning of arbitration, party autonomy has some limitations which bound parties to get arbitrators consent for change of arbitral procedure. Besides, arbitral tribunal has the discretion to change what the parties have agreed about arbitration procedural law.

Judgment is the most significant pillar of justice. Therefore, in the Islamic judicial system, several strategies are considered such as the condition of Ijtihad and justice in the judge, and problematic state of affairs in intuition to prove a crime, the necessity to satisfy the judge's need from Bayt al-mal, compensation for damages caused by a judge's error. In other legal systems, mechanisms such as predicting the jury in the courts dealing with the press and political crimes, disciplinary courts of judges and two-step criminal investigation have been proposed. Council judgment is another example of closer proceedings to justice. Investigation of the subject matter of the council's judgment is the initial part of the paper and the review of its verdict is the leading part. "Lack of reason", "being a source of disagreement", "becoming a kind of Velayat (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist,) based judgment, "independence of the judge", "cancellation of the narrations of the judge" and "single judgment as an effect of one judge" are reasons for banning the council judgment. Observing these reasons, this research shows that they do not imply a ban on council judgment; there are also several reasons for the legitimacy and validity of council judgment such as "no condition for the unity of the judge in the evidence of judgment", " accuracy of the council judgment", "compatibility with the philosophy of judgment", "compliance with caution" and "the conduct of the wise". It is even possible to gain the superiority of council judgment over individual judgment in dealing with some crimes

Deteriorating factors of criminal punishment result in preventing enforcement of punishment, even if the crime is proven. Objective factors deteriorating criminal punishment include the lapse of time, resjudicta principle, general amnesty and abrogation of code.  Personal factors include repentance, death, forgiveness of victim and madness. This paper examines causes of decline of disciplinary punishment in administrative law of Iran and France and seeks to answer the question whether deteriorating factors of penal punishments in criminal law lead to the fall of disciplinary punishment or whether there are some differences. When relevant laws are examined in depth, it seems that no legal regulation stating the causes of the fall of criminal punishment can be extended to administrative infractions, and if we consider the legislature’s neutral attitude towards the concept of intentional, we must accept that none of the factors cause the criminal punishment to decline. The legislature does not explicitly mention this but according to the spirit of the legal system of the countries under study and rule of priority when a factor leads to the decline of criminal punishment, it is clear that that factor can also lead to decline of disciplinary punishments. Also, it can be argued that the general rules governing the decline of criminal sanctions can lead to the decline of disciplinary liability, and some different rules may apply to each area.

According to Article 401 of the Civil Code, in the optional condition, the term must be known and the guarantee of its implementation is the invalidity of the condition and the contract. In the event that the parties to the option choose the condition for their lifetime or to a third party, the civil law has chosen the position of silence. Considering that in practice, such a condition is included in the regulatory contracts of the parties, it is very important for the litigants and the judge to study the jurisprudential and legal status of this condition. This matter is also disputed among jurists and lawyers; some consider such a condition to be valid because of its certainty and the adequacy of general knowledge. Another group considers such a condition to be invalid due to its ignorance and arrogance, the spread of ignorance of the condition to strangers, and contrary to the nature of the contract. Our view in this study is to distinguish such a condition in ease-based and profit-based contracts and to accept the validity of such a condition in ease-based contracts and to invalidate such a condition for being ignorant and arrogant in profit-based contracts. Therefore, such an unknown and invalid condition also makes the contract avoid and invalid. The invalidity of the contract is independent.