Mohammad Jafar Habibzade; Mohsen Sharifi; Mohammad Isaei tafreshi; Mohammad Farajiha
Abstract
For reasons including inability to impose some punishments,violating the principles of being personal punishments, not realization of punishment goal, specificity principle, constraints on procedures and most importantly, lack of guilt evidences, in negation, as well as arguments ...
Read More
For reasons including inability to impose some punishments,violating the principles of being personal punishments, not realization of punishment goal, specificity principle, constraints on procedures and most importantly, lack of guilt evidences, in negation, as well as arguments such as justice and criminology fact, difficulty of discovering the true culprit, scrutiny of the members and stakeholders in selection of managers, reduction of punishments for freedom hampering or injury of managers and finally compensation for damages inflicted on victims in a favorite manner have been expressed in proving criminal liability of the legal entities. Counterpoint approaches impact on the legal systems was so that until the twentieth century, the legal entities' liability was put in doubt as a principle. But since the second half this century following the legal entities activity scope, especially the companies, and rise of crimes against environment, organized crimes, specifically transnational crimes, crime in the field of transportation and industry in general caused the leading countries as Canada, England, United States,Netherlands and the Europe Council to accept and regulate the criminal liability of the legal entities as a must, despite of criminal law shortcomings, through relying on theories such as vicarious liability, secondary character, employers and superiors' responsibility, collective guilt and criminal liability of the legal persons. Alnahayah the movement for criminal liability of the legal entities, made Iran to join the system; so that inability for in the first step cyber crimes 2009 in particular, and in the second step for the Islamic penal law, in general were accepted. Scrutiny in transformation of the Iranian law in this regard, specifically in the above mentioned bill has been the effort of the present paper.
Mohammad Isaee Tafreshi; Mahmood Sadeghi; Mohammad Shah Mohammadi
Abstract
The legislature of our country has enacted quantum meruit for tangible assets and labour profits whereas nothing has been mentioned concerning intellectual property. However remedy has been accepted.
Taking into account the following hesitation as concrete existence of lease contract issue being an ...
Read More
The legislature of our country has enacted quantum meruit for tangible assets and labour profits whereas nothing has been mentioned concerning intellectual property. However remedy has been accepted.
Taking into account the following hesitation as concrete existence of lease contract issue being an asset, unavailability of the same thing including patent due to the condition of being an innovation, we encounter the doubt whether the quantum merit could be applicable. Because 1- If an invention doesn’t enjoy the quality of innovation or is found to be the same as previous invention cannot be registered. 2- In civil law the contract of lease is defined in a way that it is exclusive to tangible assets while intellectual property is not only tangible but also there is doubt if they can be considered as assets.
The contract of license and the royalty for granting a license in the US law solved the above mentioned problems; the reasonable royalty in U.S law is similar to quantum merit. The laws of our country, nevertheless there are a few small differences. As long as there aren’t any certain rules predicted in our country, quantum meruit can be used for patents damage.
Morteza Shahbazi Nia; Mohammad Isaei Tafreshi; Kourosh Kaviani; Esmaeil Faraji
Abstract
Sometimes people establish Commercial companies to pursue their fraudulent purposes under the veil of legal personality of the company. The law of Iran has not predicted a solution for this legal dilemma. In other legal systems such as English legal system, the courts confront these kinds of fraudulent ...
Read More
Sometimes people establish Commercial companies to pursue their fraudulent purposes under the veil of legal personality of the company. The law of Iran has not predicted a solution for this legal dilemma. In other legal systems such as English legal system, the courts confront these kinds of fraudulent acts under the famous doctrine of “Piercing the Corporate Veil” by authorizing the creditor of the company which assets are not sufficient to compensate the credit, to withdraw the limited liability rule and recover its respective claims from the assets and property of the fraudulent partner)s). In this research, we try to investigate and recognize this concept in the Law of Iran. The result of this research shows that within the English legal system, fraudulous use of the commercial company form will undoubtedly entail to the withdrawal of the corporate veil and unlimited liability of the fraudulent partner(s); however, some matters such as the legal sanctions, and also the concept of unfair actions, are still under dispute. As a result of this research it is also indicated that in our domestic legal system relying upon the doctrine of “fraud” it is possible to impede the validity of fraudulent acts of partner(s) and exceptionally rule on the unlimited liability of these people towards the company creditors.
