hasan rahpeik

Self-help sales take as a guarantee of Breach of Contract without going to court. This institution based on the legal functionalism of and the psychological view to law of contract, so that by reducing the cost and time of compensating the victim and monitoring based on exchange, apply effective enforcement. If the self-help institution is accepted, we can consider it among the authorities and not the functions of the actor, unless in the cases that explicitly foreseen by the legislator. This article is an effort with the aim of removing the ambiguity of the nature of self-help sales, examining the scope and functions of its use in contractual relations and finally determining the position of this subject in Iran's legal system. The result was that according to the existing regulations and the basis of self-help sales, and with the rejection of the opinion that supports the application of the self-help system in all cases, this entitycan be applied only in movable property and specified cases and cases that have been agreed upon. In iranian law, the closest subject to selling self-help is the theory of representation. One of the most important functions of the self-help subject is harm reduction and economic analysis of rights.  The results of the mentioned studies and researches in Iran's legal system have been examined and analyzed and it has been shown that due to the existence of the aforementioned benefits and the acceptance of this subject in the case law, the legislator should formulate regulations in order to determine its territory and position.

Civil liability law is subject to fluid and fragile rules due to its customary nature. One of the issues that has been changing and changing over time in legal systems is "civil liability of the Indiscerning person". The famous opinion of jurists and lawyers in the law of civil liability, regarding the civil responsibility of the Indiscerning person, is that according to the nature of responsibility, except for the declaratory law-non charging Legal law, the general conditions of duty, such as qualification, puberty, reason, discernment And intention is not a condition for its fulfillment; therefore, the Indiscerning person is responsible in all cases and against his losses, and his lack of adulthood, maturity, reason, purity and intent is not an obstacle to his civil responsibility. Therefore, the inadvertent person is responsible for all damages and incidents, and lack of qualification, puberty, reason, discernment and intention is not an obstacle to his civil responsibility. The application of the rules of destruction and indirect causation and Articles 328 & 1216 Civil code, The documentary is the argument of this comment. In this paper, a new theory, based on the lack of responsibility of the Indiscerning person in some of its examples, is a well-known opinion, critique, and appropriation with a new argument based on the lack of Intent to commit and causation. In this regard, the authors have given the legislator a number of suggestions and recommendations that by law, while respecting the principles of justice, it will be justice and fairness.

Private property developments have not been able to completely alter the rights inherent in private property, but private ownership has been subject to Limitations. One example of these limitations, which has been neglected in legal researches, is the issue of eminent domain by the State for private use rather than public use. The question is essentially whether there is a possibility of eminent domain for private use. The eminent domain by the state for private use, contrary to the Eminent Domain in public use, is not easily acceptable and may face challenges, since the public interest in the private use hardly imaginable. However, after a careful examination of the eminent domain for private use, to be clear that the limitation of property is a public interest, the challenge is moderated and, as a result, is acceptable in our legal system. The present research, while accepting the possibility of eminent domain by the State for private use, explains the terms and effects of this type of limitation of property, and recommends that the legislature, in addition to proposing some amendments to the rules, prescribed eminent domain by State to consider these rules.

Securities Issuers are required to disclose important information relating to the securities in primary and secondary market. The main purpose of imposing this obligation on issuer is informing investors to allow them to make informed decisions about securities transactions. In addition to the primary obligation to disclose information, t issuers are required to correct and update information after the disclosure of the information, the correct information is wronged or its falsity is discovered. The purpose of this paper is to determine the extent of the issuer's obligation to correct rumors. When false information is published publicly by the third parties(the rumors), issuer's duty to correct the false information is doubtful. On one hand, due to the existence of the aforementioned basis in this case (informing investors to allow them to make informed decisions) we can talk about issuers obligation to correct the rumors. Specially because the rumors often influence on the share price and investors decision and there is not any authority, It can be told that with regard to special features of securities market, accepting the duty of issuer to correct the false rumors, even if it is not attributable to the issuer, is better and more efficient. The research methodology of this paper is an analytical-descriptive method and the subject will be studied comparatively.