ebrahim noshadi

One of the most important areas of civil liability, civil liability is derived from possession lawsuits, during which the aggressor; By committing a behavior on his own or another's property, he causes damage to others. In England, possession lawsuits can be filed in the form of two lawsuits: aggressive (adversary) and private (private) possession lawsuits, and contrary to Iranian law, there is no provision for obstruction lawsuits, and this lawsuit is also in The format of the nuisance suit is brought up. Now, the basic question is, which of the well-known and governing theories of civil liability does the English legal system follow in dealing with possession claims (opposed possession and nuisance). To answer the question, the case law of England, which is the main basis of the country's legal system, must be examined.This article was written with the aim of civil liability arising from possession claims in English law and the possibility of adapting it in Iranian law. In terms of the purpose, the present research is an applied research, and in terms of the implementation method, it is considered part of the descriptive-analytical research. The library method was used to collect information, and the data collection tool is mostly written and theoretical. The findings of the research showed that the seizure lawsuits in Iranian law include: aggressive seizure lawsuit, nuisance lawsuit, and obstruction lawsuit. Like the contracts, the legislator has stated the common and specific conditions and elements of these claims, and the persons and judicial authorities are obliged to submit them under the same title by meeting the elements and conditions mentioned in the law. The immovable property of the object of possession, the claimant's prior possession, the defendant's right of possession, and the aggressiveness of the defendant's possession are common elements of all three lawsuits. On the other hand, the findings of the research showed that the civil liability resulting from possession claims in the laws of Iran and England is based on fault. Of course, in the case of aggressive occupation, the plaintiff does not need to prove the occurrence of damages in order to claim damages and compensation for the days of occupation, and mere occupation without consent is sufficient to fulfill the responsibility of the subsequent occupant. However, in the case of nuisance both in Iranian and English law, the claimant must prove the damage, which means that in addition to interference and disturbance in possession, damage is also one of the elements of filing a liability claim. English judges, by analyzing the elements of similar lawsuits, apply the result in similar cases, and over time it becomes the custom of judges without waiting for its legislation by the legislature.

One of the claims against real estate is the claim of aggressive possession, which is considered a part of legal claims in addition to the criminal aspect.. In iran's legal system, the seizure of Adwani is the former squatter's claim that another, without his consent, has taken immovable property from his possession and demands the restitution of his possession for that property. In The United Kingdom, the "force possession" lawsuit has been raised, so that for a dispute that a person is immovable about property and wants to remove someone who harasses his property, they use the title of "force possession", while it is rooted in British law in judicial procedure and has influenced French law on the basis of principles.

This article was written by analytical-descriptive method with the aim of investigating these claims in Iranian and British law.

In the cases of the seizure of Adwani, the Iranian legislator has supported the appearance of seizure and the basis for the provisions governing these claims is to protect public order. Overtaking either the plaintiffs, the newness of the adopted takeover or being a part of the adwani are among the pillars of the realization of the claims of the seizure. In England, in order to raise a dispute over the possession of Adwani for the study of ownership, three main elements, namely the existence of real seizure, the conflict of possession and the expiration of the legal period, and generally can be enumerated the conditions for the seizure of Adwani to study ownership based on the doctrine of time in publicity, openness and unambiguousness, proprietorship and conflict.

Right of lien is one of the most important rights to have been addressed both in Iran’s and in Canada’s law considering its jurisprudent and the common-laic-system origins, respectively, though it has not been a point of consideration in Canada’s law as wide as it has been in jurisprudence and Iran’s law. The right of lien is one of the important means of guarantee for the execution of contractual obligations. By contract conclusion, both parties are bound to execute whatever they have accepted through the contract, however, despite this bind, there is a probability that both or either parties refuse to execute their contractual obligations and bring about detriments to the other party. In Iran’s and Canada’s law, it is quite understandable that the guarantee for the execution of contractual obligations should have different types which have never been directly discussed upon either in the law of Canada as a country or in the law of Iran or jurisprudence.

The use of information technology in business has led to challenges in the rules governing jurisdiction and applicable law as, these rules are mainly based on the principle of physical approximation, while there is no physical space in the cyberspace, so how we can apply this principle to find out appropriate jurisdiction either law or court. Accordingly, this element of cyberspace has challenged the traditional legal rules of jurisdiction, which is based on place. This advent raised the question of whether legal actions in cyberspace can be regulated by traditional legal rules. In order to answer this question, we categorize rules governing on the determination of jurisdiction and applicable law according to their basis, and then fundamental bases of jurisdiction rules including mental factor and objective factor will be evaluated functionally.

Rules in Conflict of Law are based on physical proximity. So nature and form of contracts will be governed by the law with the closest connection.Physical proximity which has been typically reflected in lex loci solutionis and lex domicilii, is manily location focused. Applying these connecting factors in order to determine competent law, we need to find a location, since they are all based on a material location. But since there is no place in cyberspace, how can we determine competent law governing the form and nature of electronic contracts through these connecting factors? So, this question is principally a challenge for private international law. What is lawmakers’ approach to deal with this challenge? This article seeks to review methods adopted by Iran, United States, UNCITRAL and EU law to cope with this challenge.

The lack of a unified jurisdictional rule in civil and commercial issues at international level and global nature of cyberspace caused that effect of a legal acts exceeds the bounds of a country and several courts exercise their jurisdiction to one legal relation by resorting to various factors. To avoid this unwanted jurisdiction, parties of international contract attempted to determine the competent court in the electronic contracts, does this act has legal validity? Can the entities electronically express their will regarding the determination of a competent court? The legislative and judicial approaches indicate that this act has formal legal validity, like written according to principles of functional equality and freedom of form and technical neutrality. But in merits, its validity should be analyzed in the light of principles of forum non convenience, judicial equity and supportive jurisdiction.

The electronic Contracts have been subject to global, regional and domestic legislation. The main aim is to facilitate electronic commerce and omit barriers to its growth. On the other hand, lawmakers that regulate rules governing electronic contracts are face with two conflict factors; 1: consumer’s protection provision and need to General unification rules for the growing globalization of trade. Legislators are faced with the question whether they need a new set of rules in this regard or the traditional contract law is sufficient? In this new environment, legislation should adopt consumer protection policy or universal feature of network should be attended and take a unification general rules for trade in cyberspace. This article reviews legislation methods of the regulators at the international, regional and local level regarding electronic contracts

Jurisdiction and applicable law issue in cyberspace is one of the most challenging issues of the private international law, because conventional jurisdiction rules traditionally have territorial origin and are based on border and location while there is no place in cyberspace. This placeless characteristic of cyberspace raised these questions: whether traditional Jurisdiction rules which are based on location and are prescribed for application within certain territories are compatable with cyberspace and applicable in this area? And can we regulate legal act that occurs in this space by the traditional competence legal rules or is nessasary to establish different rules for this area? This challenge has theoritical and practical appraoches. To solve this problem, legislators established universal, regional and internal law which hasn’t resulted in establishment a separate legal system for legal act in cyberspace. Emphasizing applicatory equality and technical neutrality as two principles, legislators have chosen adaption of existing jurisdiction rules for legal acts in cyberspace.