فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی
پیاپی 23 (تابستان 1397)

Today, basic or fundamental rights apply, not only in relationships between states and private parties, but also in relationships between private parties themselves, including contractual relationships between private parties. Fundamental rights are often used in contract law in order to protect the weaker party in the contract. There are methods that can protect the weaker party by using Fundamental rights. These methods consist of: Direct horizontal effect and indirect horizontal effect. The latter divides into two Strong indirect horizontal effect and weak indirect horizontal methods. This article considers manner of protection of the weaker party through Fundamental rights in labour contracts, family suretyship contracts and unfair contractual terms. By using above-mentioned methods in these contracts and unfair contractual terms, suitable solutions for the protection of the weaker party can be presented. For example, in the light of Fundamental rights, manifestly excessive penalty clauses and unfair family suretyship contracts can be null and void. It can also protect labours against unfair contractual terms, in labour contracts, such as non-competition clauses.

Collective loss which in its general sense includes losses suffered by the whole members of a set and in its special sense is the loss incurred on the totality of a set, without it necessarily contains the detriment of the individual members,has today drawn the attention of different countrie's law for various reasons. In the meantime, one of the basic questions, is the possibility of its claim by collective legal personality. Despite the importance of this subject and the necessity of determining its legal status, sufficient attention has not been paid to it in domestic laws; and judicial precedent has no specific judgment in this regard. This writing,meanwhile the attempt to study the subject in the accepted framework of rules and regulations governing the law of Iran, has tried to study it in French Law and taken its generalization to Iran's law into accounts. Accordingly, it seems, despite the current differences in the two legal systems in terms of legislation and case law, the law of Iran can also enjoy its present legal potentialities to move toward opening the ways of accepting this claim in its domestic law, as France did.

In the event of disputes between members of the World Trade Organization, the claimant member, based on Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), should request Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to make the respondent comply with rules and regulation. If the DSB decided that the breach of the rules has occurred, the breaching party must implement the DSB’s recommendations and decisions by promptly bringing its measures into conformity with the covered agreements. If prompt compliance is impracticable, it shall do so within a ‘reasonable period of time’. The DSU does not adopt criteria for determining the reasonable period and indeed, the ambiguous language of the DSU has led to confusion and conflicting decisions. Therefore, this article aims to examine how to determine this period by presenting a criterion that could help arbitrators decide. Due to numerous shortcomings in current rules and regulation, this article, first, illustrates problems raised and then consider proposals for the amendment.

Family Protection Act, based on Islamic Law, was adopted in 2012. It states that taking part in the arbitration sessions before granting divorce is compulsory for the purpose of the conciliation and settlement between them and protecting the family that is on the verge of separation. The question is: What is the relational in the religion and the law behind this compulsory session? Can it be defined as a real arbitration? Analyzing features of arbitration, especially the role of those who act as arbitrators, the above-mentioned tact is in the form and shape of arbitration with the essence of mediation. The assigned or appointed persons by the spouses or family courts must just attempt to settle the dispute by conciliating between them. By the mediation, the spouses can agree to settle their dispute through the conciliation. Thus, arbitrators consider the Family Protection Act, and just present their consultancy opinions to the family court without proceeding in accordance with the law and legal rules to the merit of the divorce and without making an enforceable award.

The Concepts of General and Special are crucial issues in jurisprudence and statutes, that is, many provisions in statutes lay down on this basis. There is a well-known maxim which states that no General exits unless it is limited with a Special.The question of whether the general phrase is acceptable after narrow phrase and whether the ambiguity of special conveyed to general as well as fulfillment of suspicious via practical rules in subjective suspicious and in generality rule in non-suspicion at narrow phrase, is subject to great controversy and debates. This article deals with this issue by conducting a comparative study and considering the reasoning on which courts’ judgments are based. Then, it proposes some jurisprudential solutions for the purpose of convergence and finally, it concludes that there is obvious difference between collective general and floated general phrase and in subjective suspicion the wholly evidence, the wisdom as an independent source have value and no difference among other verbal specials.

Attribution of data message, defined as appointing data message to the originator, which is a portion of the security provision of electronic communication transactions has widely attracted attention of Electronic Commerce Act 1382, UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in Internet Contracts 2005 and many other similar ones. From the articles 18 to 21, Iran's Electronic Commerce Act, which are inspired by the article 13 of UNCITRAL Model law on Electronic Commerce, clarify the content of attribution of data message in several cases, Act works on attribution of data message subject and only determines criteria for distinguishing the conditions of attribution of data message from the originator, for instance, according to the article 19 of Iran’s act, despite of not sending the data message by originator, and also the principle of non-attribution of data message, it is attributed to the originator, and in this path, it benefits from concepts that there are some ambiguities about them. In this regard, it has used concepts that either there are some ambiguities about their exact concept or their application. In this research, attempts have been made to analyze the articles 18 to 21 of Electronic Commerce Act of Iran and also obviating ambiguities of them.

Following the enactment No. 104089 adopted by Cabinet Ministers of Iran on November 2, 2015 regarding general provisions and the structure of upstream oil and gas contracts model, new Iranian Petroleum Contracts Model (IPC) was presented at Tehran Summit on 28-29 November 2015. Based upon new contract model, the contractor will be in charge of execution of exploration, appraisal, development and production operations over contract area for a period of more than twenty years. As a result, it is possible that a common petroleum field or structure exists between two or more contract areas. In this case, if appropriate legal and contractual mechanisms did not deal with this issue, it would lead to serious physical and economic waste of resources, which could put the national interests in danger. Fortunately, the draftsmen of the IPC were aware of this danger and addressed this issue in the IPC. However, this article shows that the related clauses are subject to numerous ambiguities. By conducting a comparative analysis of legal sources of several countries, this article proposes some solutions in order for the IPC to deal with situations where there is a common petroleum field or structure between two or more contract areas.

The aggregation and separation of claims, the disjoining an action into several actions and courts’ decision in each case are important topics. These issues are not mentioned explicitly in Iranian Civil Procedure Code (CPC), but they are considered in French law precisely. The CPC has referred to separation of claims; however, the aggregation of claims has not dealt with directly. There is no indication in the CPC as to judges’ decision in aggregation and separation of claims. In addition, there is no explicit regulation about disjoining an action into several actions and indissociably of the claim. The aim of this article is to discuss the issues of separation of claims, aggregation of claims and related judges’ decisions. Furthermore, it considers disjoining an action into several actions and pertinent cases. In doing so, by comparing Iranian law with French law, it deals with the possibility of commencing several claims through one petition, the aggregation of claims and the disjoining an action into several actions