Articles
آموزه های فقه مدنی (2251936X)(30)pp. 5-32
In many hiring of persons contracts, the hireling delegates the performance of the obligation to a third party. For instance, a contractor who has undertaken a large-scale project may subcontract different sections to specialized subcontractors. Similarly, a surgeon might assemble a team to perform an operation under his/her supervision. The question that arises here is: In cases of delegated obligations, what responsibility does the first hireling bear if the third party causes damage? As a general rule, damage caused by a third party does not create liability for the hireling unless such liability has been explicitly or implicitly stipulated for the hireling. Unlike the laws of other countries, contractual liability arising from the act of a third party cannot be considered a principle in Iranian law. Similar approaches for the liability of the primary hireling in cases of damage caused by a third party can be considered through implied contract terms and governmental decrees.
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی (1735496X)(1)pp. 43-61
One of the most difficult cases to describe a contract is one in which the parties conclude two or more contracts in the form of a single contract. The main issue in such cases is how this contract should be described. Terms and rules of which of the contracts constituting the contract should govern the contract? And is there a Correlation between the constituent contracts of a mixed contract in terms of validity and invalidity? In this article, these issues have been studied with a descriptive-analytical method. It seems that if the combined contracts are Commutative and each Consideration is specified independently and none of the contracts is a stipulation or term of another contract, each of them is subject to its own rules and their validity and invalidity do not affect each other. But if the Consideration of the contract is the same or the parties have made the contracts conditional on each other, each contract is a part of the whole and the annulment of each contract is considered as partial annulment of the contract And the rules of sales unfulfilled in part, That is, the deduction from the Consideration and the Revocation of the correct part is applicable. Cases where a single contract is concluded that does not fit into any of the nominate contracts but the effects of multiple contracts have been used to achieve a single purpose, we are not dealing with a mixed contract but with a simple innominate contract.
مطالعات حقوق خصوصی (25885618)(1)pp. 1-20
Right of exploitation is known as one of the individual relationship to property by civil code and is counted endowment and lien contracts as its causes. Analysis of the nature of loan shows that the result of the loan contract is also right of exploitation, although civil code has not considered the contract on side contracts with the right of exploitation. The nature of exploitation right is nothing except credit domination on the right of exploitation and also permission given to the owner in the contract, as dominant the borrower on the right. Article 92 has written of the right by legislator's permission in the exploitation of resources. If we don’t know the loan contract creator, we will be faced with deadlock to determine the type of relationship that comes from it; in that, the 29 article has not predicted relationship except ownership. Revocable of loan contract and binding of lien contract and endowment do not make fundamental difference in the result. Accordingly, irrevocable in the free peace and revocable in the gift will not cause remarkable difference in the result (ownership) of these two contracts. Also famous jurists later have asserted that the result of loan contract is the right of exploitation as general endowment and lien contracts. We should not be wrong about the license of exploitation or charges in legal permission with the right of exploitation in legal or comparative permission in comparative law.
Among the most challenging matters of banking law has always been payments done through banking cards. In the wake of the prevalence of debit cards in everyday banking system in Iran, this research’s main query is to analyze human mistake and technical error during a course of payment, and discern thereupon their difference with the unauthorized fund transfer. This question is analyzed through a comparative analysis with the banking system of the Unites States of America. This analysis can give a clear understanding of the legal responsibilities of the bank and card holders in the Iranian banking law in case of either human mistake in concluding a wrong payment order by the card holder, or technical error run by the operating bank. As the outcome of this analysis, in case of human mistake in concluding the wrong payment order by the card holder, bank has no legal responsibility before the card holder, but in case of any mistake and error in running the payment order, bank holds contractual liability and strict liability before the customer.
