Private Law
Ali kazemi
Abstract
The theory of questionable litigation as a result of the new economic approach to contracts, in the 2016 amendments to the French Civil Code, in three legal articles 1123, 1158, 1183 and with the aim of creating security and legal certainty about the fate of contracts for third parties or the counterparty ...
Read More
The theory of questionable litigation as a result of the new economic approach to contracts, in the 2016 amendments to the French Civil Code, in three legal articles 1123, 1158, 1183 and with the aim of creating security and legal certainty about the fate of contracts for third parties or the counterparty of the contractual beneficiary, to was used and it is considered among the innovations and attractiveness of the new French contract law. This theory gives the third party or the counterparty of the definitive or possible beneficiary of the contracts the right to oblige the beneficiary to answer questions, in In case of non-response and clarification, the definite or possible beneficiary within a reasonable and conventional deadline, his right against the questioner will be considered forfeited, and legal security and certainty will prevail in the contract, and contrary to the traditional rights of contracts, the owner in a nosy contract with his original silence forced him to break the contract and file numerous lawsuits. In this theory, another right has been created for the principal. The application of this theory in Iran's contract law does not face any particular obstacle and until the amendment of Iran's civil law, the platform for the implementation of this theory is available, and due to its high economic efficiency and guarantee of legal security, its implementation will be useful and effective, and it will prevent the filing of lawsuits. It will prevent a lot, including the enforcement and rejection of transactions against the right of the beneficiary in the courts of justice.
Criminal Law
Sayyed Hosein Ale Taha; Hosein Aghaei; aref bashiri
Abstract
There are fundamental questions and obvious differences between the jurists regarding the guarantee or non-guarantee against the death of the convict and the additional punishment imposed on her during the issuance or execution of the sentence: Well-known jurists have considered the loss of one's blood ...
Read More
There are fundamental questions and obvious differences between the jurists regarding the guarantee or non-guarantee against the death of the convict and the additional punishment imposed on her during the issuance or execution of the sentence: Well-known jurists have considered the loss of one's blood to be based on the rule that "No Blood Money for the One Killed Due to Legal Punishment". Some jurists also citing some religious generalities, have believed to Lack of guarantees pent to Lack of extremes in Punishment and a few jurists, such as Sheikh Mufid, have distinguished between the rights of God and the rights of the people. This difference of opinion among scholars has also been transferred to the Islamic Penal Code, and there are contradictions in some legal articles that need to be examined. This article critiques each point of view in a descriptive-analytical way, along with their documentation and analysis of legal materials. The author's chosen opinion in substantiation of Guarantee for Punishment leading to the deprivation of life wherein permeate of wounds is not Arising from negligence. This claim is based on the priority of the evidence of the sanctity of the Muslim person's blood over other evidence, the generalities of the murder, and also agrees with the scholarly view of Khansari in one of her possibilities and It explicitly complies with Article 13 of the Islamic Penal Code and Note 185 of the Islamic Penal Code. According to the law, if deprive of life arising from Punishment is after warning of Judge enforcing the penalty, It removes the guarantee from him.