فهرست مطالب mohammad molodi

Ethics in interaction with law as a normative system overseeing behavior and social relations, controls humans in their individual and social life within the framework of reason and logic. Compensation for damages is one of the most important issues in the field of civil liability, and the method and quality of compensation has important personal and social effects and the discussion of moral foundations in the method of compensation strengthens the general acceptance and the perspective of realizing social justice. the approach of playing the role of the cause of damage in compensating all types of damage (material, spiritual, physical) with the acceptance and satisfaction of the victim is a secondary agreement in choosing the method and quality of objective compensation that replaces the primary damage. and by examining and conforming it to moral principles such as justice, fairness, goodwill and negation of difficulty and embarrassment, it is preferable and superior to any method and quality of compensation, including monetary method which is studied in the present research with a descriptive-analytical method of moral foundations, with a comparative view of French and English law. the compliance of this approach with the aforementioned ethical principles is as follows with the description of the information and nobles of the perpetrator of the loss and the victim on the amount of damage and the proportional compensation method, on the one hand, all the damages caused to the victim will be compensated. on the other hand, according to the condition of the person causing the loss and the facilities of the person causing the loss, the mentioned difficulty and embarrassment will be avoided.

In principle, the harms of proximity to social life are inseparable and customary unity is tolerable. Property law has tried to regulate neighborhood relations in various ways (easement, neighbors' legal obligations); But if the neighbor's harassment causes harm, the issue of compensation arises. In many cases, no negative intent or misuse in the exercise of the right can be proven. However, on what basis should the damage to the neighbor be compensated? In Islamic law, various principles have been expressed to compensate for losses. Examining the issue in an analytical-descriptive manner, this result has been obtained. In all cases, with customary truth, the attribution of damages to the perpetrator of the loss, based on the No-Loss Rule, must compensate the damage.

Class action is an action sued on behalf of an unspecified group of the injured persons. These actions, which have been formed in common law, and in particular in American law, make it possible for a number of people who have similar claims with the palintiff to be heard in a single lawsuit. Due to the significant advantages of these actions, the necessity of their acceptance in the Romano-Germanic legal systems as well as Iran law is raised. However, some principles and concepts of Romano-Germanic law and Iran law and some structural differences of the American law, have created obstacles to the acceptance of American class actions in other legal systems.

Inconsistent judgments in Individual lawsuit have bad effects on the validity of the judicial systems where there are actions with the same or common questions of law or fact and finding the methods for aggregation of the claims is one of the concern of different legal systems. There are different methods of aggregations of the claims accordance with the basis and principle of each legal system. Acceptance of Model case is one of these methods that is predicted in the German legal system. In such cases, an action is brought by one or more person and the final verdict is applied as basis to all registered individual cases.In the legal system of Iran, although model case are not accepted as a general rule, however we can see similar example of these actions in some statutes such as Law of the Organization and procedure of Administrative Justice Court. In this article with analyzing model case in German law and justifying the necessity of acceptance of it in Iran law, we want to answer this question whether model case can accept in Iran law?

In the Iranian laws, loss distribution is mainly the case when two or more causes impose damage and the interference of each one in the realization of damage is the basis for damage distribution between them. In common law, damage distribution in civil liability is considered in a broader sense and it is differentiated from the number of causes. In fact, under loss distribution, those cases are considered where the damages that should reasonably be paid by the imposer are distributed among members of the community via some mechanisms. Mechanisms that distribute damages are strict liability and insurance. Justifying participation of a group of people, who have no role in this damage and giving indemnity, is possible via economic meanslike promoting economic efficiency and realizing distributive justice in society and this is the subject of present study to investigate and analyze these basics.

The main subject of this paper is the analysis of nature of exceptions of article 84 of Code of Civil Procedure, based on the classification of defenses to substantive defense or formal defense. Although exceptions of article 84 of Code of Civil Procedure are accepted as formal defenses in general, but more contemplation can show that all of these exceptions don’t have the same nature. Most of the exceptions are formal rules, but they sometimes need to substantive rules and objective matters and this will not influence their nature. Some of the exceptions are substantive rules, but they are propounded in the formal law to use in the formal law.In fact this usage are introduction for performance of the formal rules. Some of them are substantive rules and as a result, defense against them is substantive defense. But article 84 of Code of Civil Procedure has the same manner with these exceptions.

One of the types of obligations that due to the multiplicity of the issue are mentioning is alternative obligation. Alternative obligation is an obligation that its issue is two or more things in within each other and just doing one of the issues is considered and by doing one of them, fulfill that promise is taken place and committed is absolve. An important question arises regarding the alternative obligation in the Iranian legal system verify the authenticity and validity of this obligations. Whether this kind of obligation in the law of Iran is legitimate and valid? This question arises in accordance with Article 190 of the Civil Code of Iran the deal must be determined and may be regarded as contrary to the provisions of this law there is an alternative obligation and for being indecisive issue of obligation and Gharar is void. More careful study indicates that different wavering obligation alternative obligation Gharar it does not flow. Moreover, the legal background of the above discussion indicates that the selection in implementing the obligation accepted by some great Shiah scholars and many scholars believe it to be true. This study aimed to identify the concept and principles of authenticity alternative obligation in the law of Iran carefully studied the sources of Islamic law and provisions, attributes, features and how to implement this type of obligation is expressed with comparative study of and Egypt.

In civil proceeding, plaintiff is require meanwhile access to valid evidence and provide it in the judicial authority, prove his claim. According to the traditional view, plaintiff is required to provide evidence from on behalf of himself and he could not obtained evidence proving claim from another party or third party. But today the view outdated and according to mechanism of disclosure of document, when document as one of the most important evidence, be in control another party or third party, plaintiff can request disclose it in order to prove his claim. The present research aims at a theoretical and comparative study, position of the legal system of Germany, Japan, France, England and Iran explain to the mechanism.

Increasing production and storage of electronic documents and information is one of the major consequences of development of IT. Accepting the probative value of electronic documents and information، they have become one of the most important and common evidences proving in litigation. Today، in many cases، the parties of litigation are compelled to exploit this type of probative evidence for proving their claims. When electronic documents and information related to litigation are in control or possession of the defendant، the other party can request their disclosure for his/her own proving claim. According to the request، the defendant is required to disclose in a four-step process to provide the requested electronic documents and information. The current research seeks to comparatively analyze the conditions governing the electronic documents and information disclosure as well as their sanction in English، American and Iranian law.

There is a difference between third party's mortgage and ordinary mortgage because in the first case not debtor, but the third party, who is not debtor, has to pledge his property for debt of another person (debtor). About nature of third party's mortgage, there are some opinions and in my view, it's substance is combination of general mortgage and suretyships contract. In this paper, the effects of this contract will be considered from that view.