پژوهشنامه حقوق خصوصی احرار
پیاپی 3 (بهار و تابستان 1400)

Dissolution of commercial companies is divided into three types: voluntary, forced and liquidation resulting from a court ruling. The relationship between liquidation and bankruptcy is public and private in general: every bankruptcy leads to liquidation, but not every liquidation necessarily leads to bankruptcy. Although the above-mentioned distinction is not specifically mentioned in the amendment bill of the trade law, but the above-mentioned distinction is carefully specified in articles such as 189, 199, 200, 201, 203. The above separation is the source of many works that make the necessity of separation inevitable. However, in the opinions of our judicial authorities, the difference between the conditions for the realization of these two things has been ignored, and the incorrect inference from the provisions of the law makes the ground for issuing an illegal vote. In this article, after mentioning the introduction and definitions, we will deal with the conditions and differences between the two, and then we will examine the effects of separation between them.

Reciprocal contracts are among the important and also widely used contracts in the legal and judicial systems as well as the social arena of countries that have been regulated since ancient times, especially in the field of law, especially in the field of private law and personal relations, contract law and Islamic jurisprudence which regulated and attentioned by legislators and Sharia has been holy. according to the Iranian legislator, the essential elements for the validity of a contract in reciprocal contracts have always been considered by the parties to the contract (contractors) so that the contract is considered valid and effective in conditions of legal and jurisprudential status. one of these essential elements the validity of contract and in particular the contract of sale, the existence of the object of the contract and necessity for seller ability to delivery of object to the other party to the contract and their taking possession in order to fulfill contractual obligations. In this article, the author has tried to briefly state the conditions and characteristics of legal actions of taking possession and delivery, and then discuss the differences and analytical discussions of the incident between lawyer and jurisconsult and in addition, to stating the differences between taking possession and delivery and to the contract of sale, wants to reach to a result and point of view on this matter.

There has been a lot of research on rent and forgery, but little research has been done on the relationship between rent and forgery, so research in this case is necessary. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between rent and forgery with respect to According to jurists, these results have been achieved through the library collection method. Lease is considered as a contract, while there are disagreements about the to put of the contract, which according to the definition of the contract in the civil law, forgery is also considered as a contract and the to put and agent are committed to do a series of things. The important difference between a lease contract and a to put contract is that a lease contract is necessary, but a forgery contract is permissible, and also in some rulings such as determining the agent and the action and the duration and exchange of the conditions of validity are different. Although the lease contract is different from the to put contract, but they are similar in other respects as well, such as being a covenant, being in exchange, being a trustee, and so on.

In case of contract of sale until the receipt is made, the guarantee will be the responsibility of the seller and in case of loss, the seller guarantee will be an example of the rule of loss of the seller before the receipt, but the rule of loss in the optional land will not be optional. This is a challenge because according to this rule, despite the possibility of a bill, but under certain conditions, in case of customer-specific options, the loss will still be the responsibility of the seller, ie the party that does not have the option and the right to cancel will be responsible for the loss. The rule is contrary to the requirements of ownership. It should be sufficient with certainty and it should be considered as only three animal options, a condition and a parliament.

The agricultural contract is one of the continuous and temporary contracts, therefore, for its validity, it is necessary to determine its duration, sometimes, despite the determination of the duration, as a result of the occurrence of force majeure, the crop may not reach and be harvested within the specified period, regarding this legislative situation. Article 540 of the Civil Code states: "If the farm contract expires and the crop has not yet been planted, the farmer has the right to remove the crop or to maintain it by charging a reasonable fee." Regarding the ruling of this article, there are many differences of opinion among jurists and jurists. In the present research, an attempt has been made to provide an interpretation based on the principle of good faith while reviewing and criticizing the ideas presented in this case. Also, the legal solution of other countries such as Egypt and Qatar has been briefly examined.

The study of the issue of justice in jurisprudence is of great importance; Because everywhere in jurisprudence, from worship and politics to judicial issues and the like, we find rulings that are tied to human justice. Justice must be observed in all aspects of human life. Justice is proved by the good appearance of individuals, the prevalence and martyrdom of the two just. And justice by committing a sin (how great, such as polytheism, adultery, sodomy, apostasy, etc. The criterion of being a great sin is that in the narrations and verses the promise of punishment has been promised for it, and what a minor sin). Disappears. Of course, some jurists believe that all sins, even minor ones, are major; Because in all of them, God becomes a sinner. And this theory is strong. (That is, sin, whatever it may be, is God's sin in it, and there is no need to divide the great and the small). There is a difference of opinion among the jurists as to why justice falls against morality; And the correct statement is that against morality, justice will fall. But by repenting again, one's justice is established.

The principle of personal responsibility is accepted by different sharia and legal systems. Therefore, no one can bear the burden of another sin, and this principle is in the law of civil liability. Therefore, with the evolution of human social life and the development of civilization and urbanization and moving away from tribal life, the principle of collective civil responsibility has been shaken, and whoever causes harm to another must compensate the loss himself.In Iranian, England and French law, Civil liability resulting from a minor harmful act is one of the examples of liability resulting from a non-harmful act. Therefore, in Iranian law, those who are in charge of caring for, care or educating a minor, if they fail in this task and as a result, the minor harms another, are guilty according to Article 7 of the civil liability law, and they will be obliged to compensate the damage and if he has not failed, he will be examined according to Article 1216 civil law. This rule is an exception to the principle of personal civil liability. Therefore, the purpose of civil liability in all three countries is to compensate the victims; If the terms and conditions of minor civil liability are met, the injured party has the right to seek redress from the guardian. The minor guardian, like any other civil liability, is only liable for damages attributable to himself resulting from the minor act.