فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی
سال چهل و چهارم شماره 1 (بهار 1393)

Combination of direct cause (Mobasher) and Indirect cause (Sabab) is one of causes combination kind and notwithstanding that there is not any division in holy «Qur''an» and «Sunnah»، perhaps «Shiet Scholars» have made such invention in order to facilitate of the finding of tort feasor. The art of 332 of code civil of Iran and the art of 393 of Islamic penal code of Iran following the famous opinion of Islamic scholars، provided «the priority of direct cause (Mobasher) to indirect cause (Sabab)» and have made the question that: At the time، when the influence of both of them is equal in establishment of damage، why does the liability only bear on the direct cause? Art 530 of the new bill of Islamic penal code، in spite of the fact that it has not yet enforced، demonstrated that legislators are paying attention to this criticism، considering the fact that the lawyers do not accept this priority، furthermore، some of intelligent Islamic scholars، have criticized this provision. For this reason، in this research، we deal with the existing challenges of determining the responsible person.

One of the ways of selling products is “direct selling”. The companies which use this method sell their products directly to end users just by their distributors’ intermediation. In this method، distributors retail sell the products out of a fixed commercial location. Harmful effect of loading unsold products with distributors had legislators make companies buy-back those products. Briefly، we can say، “buy-back” is a special option for direct selling. According to this option، at the end of the contractual relation between distributor and company، in the case of distributor`s request، company with deducting paid commissions and a reasonable amount will be obligated to buy-back loaded goods.

According to the famous theory in Iranian jurisprudence، civil liability of the vehicle keepers against third party is on the res ipsa loquitor، duty of care، or risk، or a combination of them. Regarding to these foundations، if a vehicle keeper has not a policy of insurance covering third party damage، he or she must compensate the damage although has not caused the accident. This was inference from a phrase of section 1 of the Compulsory Third Party Liability Insurance Act 1968. In the Reform Act 2008 that important phrase has revoked. As a foundamental question، has the liability of vehicle keepers against third party damage remained? And if the response is yes، what is the foundation of the liability? Some theorists believe it has remained and the same theories are foundation of the civil liability، others deny. This paper، criticizing two sides، tries to show that “The loss distribution” is the foundation of the vehicle keepers’ liability. The keepers all together are liable، and this liability has organized. So، it could be named “Collected civil liability system”. With this foundation، contradictions and abmbiguities resulting from other theories، receive logical answer، and limits of liability is about the premium that keeper should pay and not more than it.

Ownership and freedom are two essential rights and of value to human beings. By contrast to preliminary reviews، the link between these two values is very solid، and they have a reciprocal relation. Not only can they serve as the foundation of each other، but also in case of departing this equilibrium، each can have a negative effect on the other. The relationship between the two is the subject of study of this article. For purpose of conclusion، we should know that Freedom and ownership are two important rights، in which Law has the obligation to create equilibrium between them; as such not only there will be no conflict between them، in fact they will complement and support each other، and also each shall maximize the other.

When the victim contributes to the damage، the apportionment of liability is necessary، and the amount of compensation awarded to the victim should be reduced. Also، when more than one person injures someone، the liability must be divided between them. But the problem is that how to apportion liability? Should the liability be apportioned equally or different? And if the latter is true، how the share of any one is determined? In foreign legal system، specially، common law and Romano- Germanic law، there are different idea in this regard، and the case law has impressive evolutions. This paper criticizes the available solutions in foreign legal system and will attempt to examine the evolution of case law and doctrine in this field and express the solution that now govern in common law and Romano-Germanic law.

Compared to experimental and human sciences، law has never been productive but it has always utilized the results and information obtained through other sciences، psychology in particular. Therefore، new psychological findings about memory and age could both and must be taken into account in law as concerns interpretation and making judgment. Psychological findings show Judges rely on the testimony of older people because their situation (Memory and Perception) is undefinable. Radical skepticism of lawyers، regarding children''s testimony should be balanced by new findings about the psychology of children''s memory. And yet، it is suggested that problems of testimony of the child which is resulting from his indoctrination must be resolved by measures of psychology.

The Right to terminate and dissolution of administrative contracts is used because of two reasons: misconducts of contractors and maintaining the requisite of public interests. In the first، the causes of it have been noted explicitly in the article of 46 of The General Terms of Contracts. But about the second، it is necessary to note that the article of 48 of The General Terms of Contracts giving much powers to the public authorities. The separations which have been drawn among the causes of termination of administrative contracts are not compatible with the standards of it in private law. Independence of administrative contracts law is not obstacle against observing the standards of separation among legal conception. Preserving financial balance in administrative contracts is requisite for logical regulating The Right to terminate and dissolution of these contracts. Giving much and unlimited powers to governmental employer not only leads to occurring administrative corruption، but also disturbs the balance of these contracts and prevents the presence and take parting of nongovernmental section in doing public affairs، that would be incompatible with the public interests requirements. It is necessary to note that the elements of principle of the Rule of Law، which are legal certainty and predictability، have not been observed in regulating the provisions of the Right to terminate and dissolution of administrative contracts in Iran.

The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WCT) is an international treaty on copyright law adopted by the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva on December 20، 1996. It provides additional protections for copyright deemed necessary due to advances in information technology since the formation of previous copyright treaties before it. For example، it ensures that computer programs are protected as literary works (Article 4) and that the arrangement and selection of material in databases is protected (Article 5). This treaty had several effects on ligestlation of the member states، for example: WCT is cause of adoption Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in United States law. Whereas 89 states signed this treaty، but Iran isn’t yet member of this treaty as Bern Convention and Trips Agreement.