mozaffar bashokouh

Relativity of contracts is one of the important issues that has always been the subject of discussion. The purpose of this article is to examine the scope of the principle of relativity of contracts in Iranian and Canadian law.

This article is theoretical and descriptive analytical method is used. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.

Ethical Considerations:

 In all stages of writing the present research, while respecting the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.

Contrary to Iranian law, which examines forced and voluntary successors of both parties under the title of deputy, in Canadian law, such a division is not visible. In Canadian law, they have raised the subject of the representative office under the headings such as assignment by the actions of the parties, assignment by operation of the law or voluntary and forced assignment, and the like, which the term assignment by law or forced assignment is more or less reminiscent of the general assignment of authority in Iranian law.. In this context, we can refer to death and bankruptcy in Canadian law.

If a person who enters into a transaction on behalf of another party, if he does not declare his position as an agent when concluding the contract, the principle is that he is genuine and a relative relationship is established between him and the party to the contract, but the agent can prove his agency from The scope of contractual relativity is removed and the original can be included in the contract by proving it and benefit from its effects.

The legal confrontation with environmental pollution and the many and various losses resulting from it, which endangers human life in the present generation and future generations, requires appropriate and efficient legal enforcement guarantees. Civil Liability, as a branch of legal science, has provided valuable executive guarantees in this field, which has a preventive and compensatory role. The purpose of choosing the topic of this article is to introduce and review and complete the executive guarantees of civil liability caused by environmental pollution in Iran and US law. According to the studies conducted in this research, the executive guarantees of civil liability in US law are more complete than the legal executive guarantees of Iran, because punitive damages, joint and several liability and referendum have been accepted in US law. But even the executive guarantees of US law also have shortcomings that the authors have pointed out, and by theorizing and examining the issues of this area, the authors have created new executive guarantees, such as the cancellation of contracts that pollute the environment and the return of property. It has also presented the results obtained from the polluting activities in order to provide better means of compensation and prevention of the losses caused by environmental pollution.

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.

The channel of the principle of correctness in contracts such as contracts is a situation, so the flow of the principle mentioned in these legal acts causes their non-corruption. Whether the principle of correctness applies to rites or not? Most jurists believe in the principle of correctness in taqiyat. The well-known Imami jurists, who sometimes claim that there is a consensus, believe that the principle of correctness is valid in taqiyat. Or other reasons to claim that the agreement is invalid, his claim will not be accepted without documentation and reason. Also, in cases where the fulfillment of which requires special formalities, such as divorce, after the validity of the contract, the claim of non-fulfillment of formalities and conditions is not accepted. The principle of correctness precedes both types of legal and thematic approval, and in case of their conflict, the effects of the principle of correctness will appear. If the contract is concluded on the basis of a contract, then it turns out that the contract is void, the said invalidity does not disturb the validity of the contract. The principle of correctness only affects the rhythm itself and does not affect the affairs that follow.

until the basic conditions for the validity of the contract and, as the case may be, the specific conditions necessary for the validity of some contracts are observed and the contract does not conflict with public order and good morals, the principle is the validity of the contracts. In case of absence or non-observance of any of these conditions, the contract will be void. The annulment of the contract has effects, including the responsibility of one of the parties to the void contract to compensate the damages caused to the other party to the contract. Liability arising from a void contract and the obligation to compensate for the resulting damage is of non-contractual origin. In order to achieve the goal of civil liability, ie full compensation, it is necessary to determine the best method of compensation that the courts use as part of the compensation in each case and avoid any kind of compensation and order to pay damages in cash in all cases. In the event of an obligation and its breach, liability for breach of obligation is conceivable, which has different types of liability and includes civil or coercive liability, contractual liability, criminal and moral liability. The conditions for fulfilling the responsibility are: certainty, directness, personality, non-compensation, predictability and damage to the damaged legitimate right. In the present article, we try to discuss the conditions of fulfilling the responsibility in repairing the damage caused by false transactions by descriptive-analytical method and studying libraries.

Termination is a legal act that is done by a will and is included in the number of contracts (Article 449 of the Civil Code). The best basis that can justify the option of termination if the obligor refuses to perform the obligation is the theory of condition according to Articles 235, 238 and 239 of the Civil Code. In Iranian law, options have no single basis and the effect of termination is according to the articles of the Civil Code, including Articles 287, 454 and 459 of the Civil Code from the time of termination. In English law, the cause is the basis for the termination of the contract, and according to the rules and regulations of English law, if the obligor fails to fulfill the obligations contained in the contract (whether the main obligations or minor obligations), the obligation of the obligor will be terminated. That is, the obligee can terminate the contract or ask the obligee to fulfill the obligation from the court. In this descriptive-analytical study, an attempt has been made to examine the legal and economic foundations of the right of termination in the law of Iran and the United Kingdom. The results indicate that the basis and source of termination of the contract in English law is the basis for the termination of the contract.

The growing various damages caused by environmental pollution, the wide range of victims, the multiplicity of defendants that create pollution on the one hand, and the renewal of domestic law in providing appropriate grounds for imposing civil liability on environmental pollution on defendants and the ineffectiveness of existing temporal environmental statutes in providing apposite ways to prevention and compensation solutions These losses, on the other hand, necessitate the study of the grounds for civil liability arising from environmental pollution in the laws of other countries; This article seeks to study US legal’s doctrine in the field of civil laibility of environmental pollution and usage in legal decision to creating legal convergence to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of this doctrine. According to this study, the US legal’s doctrine despite its shortcomings has been interpreted and empeloyed appositely by judges and lawyers and covered many of the necessities in the field of environmental liability basics.

In economic and commercial interactions, commercial instruments play a strategic and facilitating role between the parties to the transaction.The purpose of this article is to review, explain and analyze the legal nature of guaranty in terms of "transfer of obligation to obligation" and "add obligation to obligation" in jurisprudence, Geneva Convention and the Law of Other Countries, Civil Law and Commercial Law of Iran. The terms of the guarantee and the manner of intervention of the guarantor and the effects of the guarantee should known according to its status in the commercial documents. However, the interference and guarantee of the guarantor in commercial documents is not limited to the guarantee in the subject of Articles 237 and 238 of the Iranian Commercial Code. The research is of a qualitative type of content analysis, interpretiveness and hermeneutics, which guided by two research questions. The statistical population of the research formed by first-hand library resources.According to the findings of the survey, the legal intervention of the guarantor in you, which provided only in the mentioned articles in the promissory note and check according to Articles 309 and 314 of the Commercial Code, which refer to the rules governing you.They are not applicable by legal interference and guarantee of the guarantor, as a result of Articles 237 and 238 of the Commercial Code can not be enforced in promissory notes and cheques, and in this regard intervention and guarantee with origin. The law is different from the guarantor contract guarantee in commercial documents.

This research has been done with the aim of examining the general rules of civil liability and its analysis and comparative study in Iranian and British law and Imami jurisprudence by analytical descriptive method. The results show that in English law, the general rules of civil liability are referred to as: liability for negligence, intentional and fault-free liability, of which negligence and liability are the most important. Civil liability in Iranian law includes: liability based on fault and no fault, the rule of causation and loss is the main element of liability based on fault and no fault, respectively. However, in Imami jurisprudence, liability based on fault and without fault is considered as a unit and contrary to Iranian law, the rule of loss and causation are not independent of each other. However, causation is not the main element of liability and mere realization of the loss does not create a guarantee without a loss factor. Finally, despite the apparent differences, the general rules of civil liability in these three systems; They are adaptable and have a common goal: "administration of justice and full compensation for wrongdoing."

Regarding civil responsibility, there is an institution called “punitive damage” in the laws of some countries, according to which in cases where the losses are caused intentionally and bearing ill will, the defendant is judged to pay more than just material and spiritual losses for the damage. Since we didn’t have such an institution in Iranian private law, it is of necessity to study and investigate whether to accept it in the Iranian law. The present research aimed at determining the status of this type of damage in the Iranian jurisprudence and law in order to answer whether it is necessary to recognize punitive damage in Iranian private law. This research uses a descriptive-analytical method and note-takings of the national and foreign books and articles are done through library research. Due to criticisms of punitive damage and considering the fact that there are similar legal institutions such as consideration, blood money, and general principles governing civil responsibility, it seems there is no need, for the Iranian national law, to accept this legal institution. The approval of the Act of the Jurisdiction of the Iranian Judiciary on punitive damage claims against foreign states is considered only as a reciprocity act against some foreign states and it should not be regarded as an accepted institution in the Iranian private and internal law.

Under theenforcing the law on damage, when patients are exposed to damage and injury when acting or leaving action on health-related factors such as physicians and laboratory officials, patients must take standard action to mitigate the loss or claim. Otherwise they will lose the right to defend themselves. The most important effect of this rule is that the assignment of a claim against a loss is subject to a statutory or contractual breach of the loss. The question is whether the main effect of the rule is the alleged negligence for avoidable damages, or the exclusionary claim for reducible damages? What is the nature of the action taken to counter the loss? Should diligent efforts yield the desired result or is the standard effort sufficient? The burden of proving damage or non-damage is either disadvantageous or detrimental, and comparative study of other issues can be very helpful in explaining the effects of the rule and its implementation.

The main purpose of issuing punitive damage verdict is to make compensation for the loss inflicted on the plaintiff and to restore the plaintiff to the status quo ante. In Iranian law, the basic principle is to recover the damage and restore the plaintiff to the status quo ante, but the punitive damage is completely different. In other countries, including England and the US, in which punitive damage is accepted in a broad sense, the punitive damage is defined aside from any compensatory damages or nominal damages which are considered in issuing the verdict due to extreme misconduct of the defendant. As in the members of Romano-Germanic Legal System, in Iranian law punitive damage is not applied in private lawsuits. Despite this situation, and regarding international aspect, and in response to some measures taken by countries - the US, in particular - in sentencing Iran to punitive damage, the lawmaker, eventually, recognized punitive damage in considering civil lawsuits against foreign governments in 2011. A question, however, arises here is that  it is possible for arbitration institutions in common-law obedient countries to issue punitive damage verdict. In this paper, we discuss this issue and also possibility or non-possibility of execution by national courts of the punitive damage verdicts issued by arbitration institutions.

When one hurts or sustains a loss or damage due to harmful act, he or she shouldn't be motionless and after that, claim restitution but should act reasonably and do his or her best for blocking or decreasing of loss. The question is. Can this rule also apply to medical law? When patient hurts or subject to hurt because of physician's or other related persons' mistake, injured person should do any necessary acts in order to treatment or reduction of disease such as following other treatment procedures. Applying of this doctrine needs some conditions like awareness of patient, financial ability or so. And some factors can prevent to apply this doctrine. Including them, religious beliefs can justify failure to deal with the damage. Injured person doesn't deserve for receiving any compensation for damages which he or she didn't prevent. This essay consider the mitigation of damage doctrine and its condition and obstacles in medical laws, And in this regard, conflict or non-conflict Mitigation of damage doctrine to religious beliefs can be studied.
Please cite this article as: Khakpour M, Bashokouh M, Lotfi AR. The rule of Mitigation of Damages in Medical Law and the Influence of Religious Beliefs in Applying this Rule (Comparative Study with American Law). Iran J Med Law 2019; 13(49): 7-36.