Private Law
Amirhosseyn Alizadeh; Mohammadbagher Parsapour
Abstract
In order to implement public projects which are carried out by the executive systems, apart from the ownership, the owners of the property in these projects' realm may be affected by the implementation of public projects. The question is whether the executive system can be held liable for such damages? ...
Read More
In order to implement public projects which are carried out by the executive systems, apart from the ownership, the owners of the property in these projects' realm may be affected by the implementation of public projects. The question is whether the executive system can be held liable for such damages? This is one of the most important issues in many countries, which has sometimes been overlooked. In the present article, this issue has been studied in an analytical and comparative manner in the Iranian judicial procedure. In general, British law's spoken about three types of damages: damages resulting from the ownership of a part of the property; damages resulting from the type of work and exploitation of the project and damages resulting from the deprivation (disturbance) of rights. Determining the compensation in the first case is done on the base of three rules of concurrent value or value reduction and the rule of before and after, and in the second case is based on the method of payment of damages in the scope of civil liability and in the third case, is based on the evaluation of relocation costs or completion of business activities. Iranian law and judicial precedent have no corresponding rules regarding the damages of the first and second types, and the judicial procedure does not provide a clear criterion for damages of the third type. In some cases, determining the compensation is subject to the agreement of the parties or to the extent of definite damages. However, it seems that in Iranian law, based on accepted rules and principles, it's possible to provide acceptable justification for the application of rules in British law.
Fardin Moradkhani
Abstract
The theory of separation of powers is one of the most important concepts in public law that was stated for the first time by Montesquieu. Different and various conceptions and traditions of this concept have been created in different countries. Iranians became familiar with this concept during constitutional ...
Read More
The theory of separation of powers is one of the most important concepts in public law that was stated for the first time by Montesquieu. Different and various conceptions and traditions of this concept have been created in different countries. Iranians became familiar with this concept during constitutional revolution through writings of intellectuals, and referred to it in Constitution. In this essay after a short consideration of the concept of separation of powers, we will investigate Iranian's experiences with this concept in the writings of intellectuals and clergymen and important experience of the first parliament. One of the main challenges of the first parliament was regarded to the separation of powers, because there were no clear guidelines for various bodies of newly created form of government. So, members of this parliament debated different issues, like the relationship between Executive and Judiciary and responsibilities of ministers.
Alireza Yazdanian
Abstract
The principle of tort law is that the liability is based on the act prejudicial that in Iranian law in conformity with the article 1 of Tort Law Code and in French law in conformity with the article 1382 of Civil Code, this act must be guilty. The harmful act in determining responsible in tort law is ...
Read More
The principle of tort law is that the liability is based on the act prejudicial that in Iranian law in conformity with the article 1 of Tort Law Code and in French law in conformity with the article 1382 of Civil Code, this act must be guilty. The harmful act in determining responsible in tort law is necessary. If the chain of causes of action for compensation for damaging responsible is a person who has committed a fault. In addition to the traditional basis of the theory of fault, there are other foundations, such as the theory of complex, theory of garanty or theory of obligation of security. However, all these comments have one thing in common that harmful act is necessary for liability. The origin of these new approaches is sometimes conventions and customs in some countries. However, these comments can be found in the literature of law of obligations in France law. Nowadays, as well as this rule, there are some other theories that relate to the scope of the necessity of act in determining the responsible person to remedy the damages. These theories are mainly originated from French law that will be studied comparatively in this article.
Alireza Yazdaniyan
Abstract
Sometimes a person because of bodily or mental situation needs the care of other person،For this reason, in other legal systems the authority of control of this persones has been given to the some of the person،In this cases if the person under care dameges to another , the person that care of ...
Read More
Sometimes a person because of bodily or mental situation needs the care of other person،For this reason, in other legal systems the authority of control of this persones has been given to the some of the person،In this cases if the person under care dameges to another , the person that care of this person is responsible،In French law the article 1384 of civil law has pointed to the liability of the parents، In Iranian law, the article 7 of tort law has pointed to liability of guardian of infant and mad،But it is imaginable that the other persons need the care like the persons blinds or the prsons weaks or the persons ills that theire guardians whether natural person or legal person are responsible, that it has been pointed in other systems but in Iranian law there is no compensation ، It seems that it is possible the designing the rule of the liability of the guardian of the acts of the persons under care that comprativly is be studied in this article.
Ali Tahmasbi; Kourosh Alipour
Abstract
In legal systems, regarding the expected objectives, the various factors have been taken into account in determination of basis of civil liability in order to select a more appropriate rule. The liability may depend upon the commitment of negligence by tortfeasor or only the existence of the causation ...
Read More
In legal systems, regarding the expected objectives, the various factors have been taken into account in determination of basis of civil liability in order to select a more appropriate rule. The liability may depend upon the commitment of negligence by tortfeasor or only the existence of the causation between the detrimental act and loss shall be enough for achievement of the liability. The present article, irrespective of basis accepted in legal systems, intends to study the effect of these rules on behavior of people and their encouragement in observing the precaution. In cases where the tortfeasor can hinder to occur the loss, the rule of strict liability may have the appropriate effect and encourage him in observing the precaution. But, if the precaution of tortfeasor and victim is necessary for prevention of occurring loss, the more appropriate effects shall be followed through applying the negligence or competitive strict liability. Such analysis makes it possible to consider the probable effects of rule on the behavior of the people and to be more appropriate or inappropriate, before constituting the rule and while taking into account the various aspects, and to take the proper actions for removal of its effects.
