Publication Date: 2017/09/23
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی (1735496X)(2)pp. 545-564
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.
Publication Date: 2014/03/21
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی (1735496X)(1)pp. 133-153
In most legal systems, the right to cancel the contract is provided for consumer in electronic contracts with slight variations. In article 6 of the European Union directives on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, such right is provided too. Article 37 of Iranian EC code considered for the right of withdrawal is very close to the above terms. There is a controversy about the nature of this right between the authors. The dominant approach considers it as a new legal cancellation right. It seems that despite the apparent similarity, the right of withdrawal in these two, is fundamentally different. Article 37 unlike its European equivalent, obligates the supplier to provide the withdrawal right for the consumer in the contract not any establishment of the right of rescission for the consumer.
