Private Law
Abbas Karimi; Mohammad Hadi javaherkalam
Abstract
In this article, the facilitation of causation in medical accidents has been studied comparatively in Iranian and French law with an emphasis on the jurisprudence of the two countries. The purpose of this study was to show the constructive role of French judicial procedure in the evolution of the legal ...
Read More
In this article, the facilitation of causation in medical accidents has been studied comparatively in Iranian and French law with an emphasis on the jurisprudence of the two countries. The purpose of this study was to show the constructive role of French judicial procedure in the evolution of the legal system of this country and to provide constructive solutions to facilitate causation in medical accidents and to use the solutions provided for the Iranian legal and judicial system. By descriptive-analytical research method and by studying jurisprudence, it was concluded that French courts have facilitated the causal relationship by using the presumption of attribution of damages or causality, the negation of other causes, equality of causes and conditions and the theory of loss of opportunity. The jurisprudence of our country has also used some of these solutions, although in a more limited way and mainly in the case of infected blood. However, further use of these legal solutions is necessary in our country to establish a causal relationship in various areas of medical accidents and compensation of victims. Therefore, the use of these solutions as a judicial authority is proposed to the courts.
Abbas Karimi; Mohsen Saeedinia
Abstract
The litigations resulting from a crime may be categorized in two categories of private and public suits. One of the most significant issues in such suits is the recognition of parties to them. A public suit is lodged by the public prosecutor against a defendant. The private suit is, however, made by ...
Read More
The litigations resulting from a crime may be categorized in two categories of private and public suits. One of the most significant issues in such suits is the recognition of parties to them. A public suit is lodged by the public prosecutor against a defendant. The private suit is, however, made by persons whose beneficiary status may not be determined as simply as expected. The main issue of this paper is to recognize the persons along with the victim to have the right to lodge a case in line with the observance of civil procedure rules and regulations. May legal entities other than real entities, lodge a private suit before criminal courts? In addition, which damages mentioned under the 2014 Criminal Procedure Code may be claimed by such persons? In the legal system of the most countries like, France, in addition to victim, the others can suit a private case. This Suit can transform voluntarily or forcibly. Then, successors such as heirs, insurer and transferee and those who have been hurt directly from crime can suit this case. Studies show that the regulations of Iran in this area suffer from scattering, incoherence and legal vacuum. In this regard, it is suggested that in view of the other countries' law and regulations, the regulations in this area would been consistent and some rules approved about promoting the protection of claimants in private suit resulting from crime; because various rules and laws governing such suits, along with conflicting precedents have led to some implications on the issues of the private suit resulting from a crime under the Iranian legal system, made judges confused.
Abas Karimi; Hadi Shabani Kandsari
Abstract
The possibility of transaction of future property is studied in this article. The purpose of doing this paper is studying of the bases of nullity of transaction of future property and designing of the general rule for these transactions, and we were encountered to this question that why the famous of ...
Read More
The possibility of transaction of future property is studied in this article. The purpose of doing this paper is studying of the bases of nullity of transaction of future property and designing of the general rule for these transactions, and we were encountered to this question that why the famous of jurists and lawyers knew as nullity transaction of future property, and how much the given arguments are valid and also in what cases it is possible to know truth the transaction of future property under a general rule. The result was that transaction of future property has known as nullity mainly because of some Jurisprudential exemplum (called Revayat in Islamic jurisprudence) and the forbidden of belonging of possession of nonexistent and its uncertainty, while there are also some Jurisprudential exemplum indicating the truth of transaction of future property. Moreover, prompt possession is not the inherent prerequisite of possessive contracts and possession takes place after the emersion of the subject of contract. In addition, transaction of future property is not uncertain and should be known as truth, if there is conjecture of creation of the property in the future according to the normal routine of affairs. Therefore, the existence of subject of contract meanwhile of conclusion is not of the main conditions and general rule and is necessary only in the cases which the mind basis of the parties is on the transaction of existent property
