نشریه آموزه های حقوقی گواه
سال پنجم شماره 1 (پیاپی 8، بهار و تابستان 1398)

One of the most important rules of jurisprudence, including eliminator for responsibility, is the permission rule, according to which, if a person, by the owner or the shareholder, is obliged to seize the property or right and incidentally causes it to be damaged, his act is not responsible. Regarding the nature, scope of this jurisprudential rule, it is clear from the detailed sources of legal and jurisprudential sources that there are many differences of opinion between jurists, and therefore no identical definition has been made about it. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive definition to permission by examining the above-mentioned theories and criticizing them, and then examining the points and effects of the new definition. It should be noted that the research method of this Article is the use of library tools.

Punitive damages is an institution that is rooted in common law. Although in Iranian law there is a legal letter, but is used only in civil cases against some foreign states, it is not actually accepted in domestic law of Iran. To this occasion, works have been written in Persian language, about the possibility of accepting and rejecting it in Iranian law and in some of them, the introduction of this legal concept to Iranian law is recommended. In this regard, attention to the limitations imposed on punitive damages in the United States of America in recent years can be of great help to researchers in this area. Because the review of these restrictions after years of experience in punitive damages in this country has been designed and to address some of the problems caused by punitive damages, especially the criticisms of the unjust enreachment in punitive damages cases and to ignore defendant’s rights in these cases. According to the proposition, the entry of punitive damages to Iranian law in its pure form and without such restrictions would be out of the way of planning and wisdom. In the present article, five of the most important restrictions that apply to punitive damages in the United States, have been attempted to address punitive damages reforms in American law. These restrictions range from the impossibility of claiming punitive damages in four states from the United States to a ceiling for punitive damages in the laws of more than 25 states in the United States, as well as rigorous laws to demonstrate a specific description of a harmful act and Or its subject in the cases of punitive damages, as well as the receipt of part of the punitive damages in favor of the General Fund.

Contracts have been divided in 2 parts: promissory contracts and mandate contracts. This division has been originated from difference in creature of contract, contains difference in general rules. Dissolution of contracts is one of the most important cases that is affected from general rules. According to this, dissolution of mandate contracts doesn't follow the present general rules governing on contracts (that is related to promissory contract) and has its specific rules. Whit this explanation that doing the subject of mandate causes termination of mandate sometimes and in this way mandate will be dissolved. In some cases too cancelling of subject of mandate causes dissolution of that. Also, it is possible that person represented depredate mandate by withdrawal from it. The other things that dissolve mandate are death and incapacity of parties of mandate. So the dissolution of mandate contracts is related to termination of mandate in cases that will plays an important role in it. In these cases dissolution of mandate occurs subsequent of performing of juridical act and coercive factors don’t play any role in that. On the other hand, there are cases that related to automatic cancellation that cause dissolution of mandate without needing will of person and it occurs with will of legislator.

Contracts have been divided in 2 parts: promissory contracts and mandate contracts. This division has been originated from difference in creature of contract, contains difference in general rules. Dissolution of contracts is one of the most important cases that is affected from general rules. According to this, dissolution of mandate contracts doesn't follow the present general rules governing on contracts (that is related to promissory contract) and has its specific rules. Whit this explanation that doing the subject of mandate causes termination of mandate sometimes and in this way mandate will be dissolved. In some cases too cancelling of subject of mandate causes dissolution of that. Also, it is possible that person represented depredate mandate by withdrawal from it. The other things that dissolve mandate are death and incapacity of parties of mandate. So the dissolution of mandate contracts is related to termination of mandate in cases that will plays an important role in it. In these cases dissolution of mandate occurs subsequent of performing of juridical act and coercive factors don’t play any role in that. On the other hand, there are cases that related to automatic cancellation that cause dissolution of mandate without needing will of person and it occurs with will of legislator.

In Iranian legal system investment bank including the financial institutions, is subject to paragraph 1 of article 21 of the market law, which provides a variety of financial services in the capital market. This company is the most complete form of financial institution, that is, it is able to provide the total services that other financial institutions provide in accordance with Article 28 of the same, the law of operation is under the supervision of the organization. And public assemblies, managers, inspector-auditor and specialized committees of the company are required to observe and enforce the laws and regulations. After obtaining a license to establish and issue a license, the company will start legal life according to the laws and regulations and is governed by the Statute of the Securities and Exchange Organization approved by the Joint Stock Company or by a public corporation , Therefore, it was necessary to review and review the system of inspections of commercial companies in accordance with the general rules of commercial companies in the Commercial Code, the amending bill and other laws and regulations related to capital market law. Considering the significant impact of investment banks on the supervision of these companies in accordance with existing laws, in addition to the customary internal inspection system in stock companies, several regulations have been approved by the Stock Exchange and In the same direction, the investment bank is required to submit to the organization periodic reports of specific issues in due time that along with these reports, the Securities and Exchange Organization also monitors the activities of investment bank through its inspectors. In addition, the central bank has been trying in many ways to oversee investment banks In order to prevent banks from entering the field of business and finance, making banks and credit institutions more attractive, banks are required to sell their shares in investment banks.