Private Law
Mansour Akbari Araei; reza nikkhah; siamak jafarzadeh
Abstract
One way of mental damage compensation is apology. Apology plays an important role in healing mental and emotional pain of victims and has a detrimental effect on their relationship with the wrongdoer. This has been the subject of legislative attention in the Iranian law and in case of mental damage article ...
Read More
One way of mental damage compensation is apology. Apology plays an important role in healing mental and emotional pain of victims and has a detrimental effect on their relationship with the wrongdoer. This has been the subject of legislative attention in the Iranian law and in case of mental damage article 10 of the Civil Liability Act gives the court the authority to force the wrongdoer to apologize for the loss. However, apology has not yet been defined and its terms has not considered in the country’s laws. Other countries such as Canada and the US are the leading countries in this case and have used the apology as a tool to relieve mental pains. A lot of research has been done for defining and explaining the term “apology” till now. In this research we’ll study the notion and terms of apology and its role in mental damage compensation of the victim and its effects on wrongdoer behavior and also the process of apology in the court. In conclusion, on one hand, the Iranian legislator must define the apology and on the other hand, the role of judicial procedure must be emphasized so that apology will become one of the methods of spiritual compensation if necessary.
Mohammad Jalali; Mohammad HasanVand; Ayob Miri
Abstract
By the Iranian Constitution, justice courts are considered to be the public authorities to deal with people’s complaints. Alongside these public authorities, the Administrative Justice Court (AJC) has been developed with the aim of “getting people’s right from the government” ...
Read More
By the Iranian Constitution, justice courts are considered to be the public authorities to deal with people’s complaints. Alongside these public authorities, the Administrative Justice Court (AJC) has been developed with the aim of “getting people’s right from the government” and “establishment of administrative justice”. Referring to the principles of the Constitution, one can to some extent make jurisdictional distinctions between the justice courts and the AJC. However, in the Iranian judicial procedure, which has a more precise look at the issue of jurisdiction, and explains the distinctions in a technical manner, the issued decisions indicate that regarding the jurisdiction of the AJC there is not a united procedure, and this disunity applies both to the AJC and public courts. The first question to be raised is whether all claims concerning the government’s civil responsibility should be made before the AJC, or in all cases in which the losers intend to demand compensation from the governmental institutions they first should refer to the AJC in order to ascertain the transgression; or in some cases they can directly make their claims before the public court. Abstracting the cases in which the conditions of the responsibility of the government are met, this study tries to discuss the above questions on the basis of the examination of judicial decisions. Finally, it comes to the conclusion that the general jurisdiction of public justice courts over all civil and criminal claims requires that the jurisdiction of the Administrative Justice Court should be interpreted according to the existing laws and in accordance with the philosophy of the formation of the AJC. Therefore, not all claims could be made before the AJC, and the individual claims for compensation against administration must be interpreted with respect to the nature of the claims, the position of the specific governmental office or department in relation to that of the individual, and the type of the administrative action.
Farid Mohseni; Nasir Malakooti
Abstract
Causation, being one of the essential elements of criminal and civil liabilities, is the meeting point of these two forms of liabilities. Unless causation is proved, neither of these two forms of liabilities would come into play. However, there is a fundamental difference in areas of criminal and civil ...
Read More
Causation, being one of the essential elements of criminal and civil liabilities, is the meeting point of these two forms of liabilities. Unless causation is proved, neither of these two forms of liabilities would come into play. However, there is a fundamental difference in areas of criminal and civil liabilities as to the concept of causation. Thus, in area of former, causation must be analyzed through criminal methodology. This is given to the fact the each area of liabilities has its own means and necessities and therefore each type can only be reviewed on the basis of each respective structure. While, it is accepted that compensation would be a consequence of bearing criminal liability, invoking criminal liability is based on standards sourced from criminal principals. This paper will endeavor to provide a comprehensive criminal overview of the causation, its elements, norms as well as challenges of such essential element of criminal liability in light of Islamic thoughts, judicial verdicts and criminal legislations, particularly the new Islamic Penalty Code ratified in 1392 .
Nafise Shooshinasab; Abbas Mirshekari
Abstract
In this research we have tried to investigate if the victim’s predisposition would influence civil liability of tortfeasor. In exact words “Predisposition” means the unusual physical situation of the victim before damages are incurred to him. Sometimes the tortfeasor intensify victim’s ...
Read More
In this research we have tried to investigate if the victim’s predisposition would influence civil liability of tortfeasor. In exact words “Predisposition” means the unusual physical situation of the victim before damages are incurred to him. Sometimes the tortfeasor intensify victim’s unusual situation and sometimes he changes the nature of his disability. We reached to a conclusion according to which, except causing perfect blindness which is effective in intensifying tortfeasor’s liability, in other situations, predisposition is effective in reducing tortfeasor’s liability. As a result, we should suffice to strict interpretation in the case of blindness.
Alireza Yazdanian
Abstract
In connection with foundation of civil liability in the Iranian and French law, the theory of fault as the rule and theory of risk as the exception has been pointed. Nowadays, the civil liability is not subjected to a uniform rule and the basis of the civil liability in the various domains, specially ...
Read More
In connection with foundation of civil liability in the Iranian and French law, the theory of fault as the rule and theory of risk as the exception has been pointed. Nowadays, the civil liability is not subjected to a uniform rule and the basis of the civil liability in the various domains, specially in transportation, has been changed. The said domain is one of the most important areas for the commencement of the developments in the fundamentals of the liability, so that some jurists say that there is a “Special Regime of Civil Liability” in transport law. In other hand, there is dispute whether the liability of the carrier is a contractual liability or a natural liability. In terms of taking one of these decisions, the foundation of liability is differed. In this article, the comparative method of this subject has been studied.
Mahdi khadem Sarbakhsh
Abstract
In cases of damage, we sometimes face a situation in which the physical, mental, social and economic conditions of the injured party can influence the damage or its amount; in these cases, the question is can the agent rely on these conditions to reduce his responsibility and if yes, under what circumstances. ...
Read More
In cases of damage, we sometimes face a situation in which the physical, mental, social and economic conditions of the injured party can influence the damage or its amount; in these cases, the question is can the agent rely on these conditions to reduce his responsibility and if yes, under what circumstances. It seems that, considering the general inclination in the most of the legal systems in the world, it is better to distinguish among different conditions of the injured party. Also, we should believe that the agent can rely on these conditions to relieve his responsibility in two occasions. First, when the physical, mental, social and economic conditions of the injured party causes the damage such that if he/she had not been in that conditions there would have been no damage. Second, when the social and economic conditions of the injured party aggravates the damage. However, in these cases the intention of the agent or prediction of the injured party’s condition by the agent, prevents the influence of this condition on the agent.
