taha arabasadi

In common law legal systems as well as transnational soft laws (such as transnational commercial law, international arbitration law, etc.), this general principle is accepted that the violation of parties in the matter related to the dispute may lead to depriving them of their right to hearing their lawsuits. This principle is called the principle of prohibition of invoking one's illegal act in continental Europe, and in Common Law, which is the origin of the legal rules related to this principle, it is called the Theory of Clean Hands. Recently the issue of acceptance of this theory in Iranian law and Islamic jurisprudence has been raised by several authors, And as a ritual rule, various bases have been presented to justify it. In the present article, the authors are trying to analyze the foundations of this theory and philosophically explore its basic norms. Some consider the agenda of this principle as the moral norm of the necessity of protecting the moral integrity of the courts, Some consider the norm of "You are the same" as its basis. The mentioned moral norm prevents people from complaining and protesting against those who commit a similar or related offense to what the complainants/protesters have already committed.

The legal characteristics of money serve as the gateway to the world of monetary debts, emerging from a comprehensive understanding of money's economic roles. Customary law, in this context, seeks to explore social realities and understand the institutions that humans have developed. By examining existing practices, it aims to establish legal obligations. Consequently, the law positions itself to support the economic functions of money through a declarative lens, assessing these functions before recognizing them as legal definitions through applying reason and logic. Interestingly, domestic legal literature often lacks a function-oriented economic perspective and tends to blur the distinction between the legal characteristics of money and the rules governing monetary debts. Discussions on this topic frequently focus more on regulations regarding monetary debts rather than on the essence of “money” itself, regardless of its role in creating obligations. Therefore, the main question the authors seek to address is: What are the legal characteristics of money in its pure form? This research employs an analytical-library method and a comparative approach, drawing from legal and jurisprudential thought (particularly common law), to systematically identify the legal characteristics of money.

In today’s world, it would certainly be difficult to do without services of electronic systems. Making use of these apparently free services will come at the cost of complying with terms and conditions which have already been drafted by authors of the mentioned systems as a result of a great deal of effort and possibly in consultation with lawyers. Accordingly, in case users were aware of the mentioned terms, they either have never used them, or at least would have been reluctant to do so. On that account, the present article seeks to deal with the query as to the ideal way to deal with the imposition of unfair terms and ways to minimize its disadvantages while enjoying benefits of these terms. We advocate the thesis that a composite approach, which curbs and restricts these terms in the most efficient way possible, is the ideal way to protect rights of users as the weaker party. Therefore, in the present article, using comparative and analytical-library method, we shall examine, in three sections, methods of conclusion and contents of these terms and the proposed ways of dealing with them.

Classification of negligence into different levels, is a complex legal issue. Therefore, some commentators have entirely rejected its multi-layered nature and some others have identified its different levels. In an attempt to make sense of the nature of negligence, we have put foreward a new thesis. We have adopted a dualist approach in identification of the nature of negligence in the sense that while in principle resort should be made to subjective criteria in making sense of negligence, one must also take objective criteria into account. Accordingly, one faces instances where negligence is not of an ordinary nature nor an intentional one. In said instances, law confers certain effects on the acts commited. For instance, under Iranian Penal Code and Insurance Code, binging and excessive drug use entail consequences such as coupled damages and claims made by insurers for refund.

One of the important issues which is usually neglected in the Iranian Legal literature is the impact of wrongdoing on rights of the wrongdoer from which would other they would have benefited. In the present paper we endeavor to address the complex issues by using analytical-library method which pertains to the legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” what are the cases and examples and what is its legal effect. We have sought to base the said doctrine on Islamic canons and maxims, thus justifying its application under Iranian positive law. In response to the said questions and by using and analyzing the Islamic documents we came to the conclusion that the doctrine of clean hands under certain conditions has no inconsistency with the foundations of our legal system, and there exists adequate remedies for said doctrine in order to be applied.

To safeguard job security of workers against arbitrary dismissal by their employer on the one hand, and the possibility of exercise of the right of unilateral termination by employer in some cases, on the other hand, and mode of reconciliation between these two apparently conflicting goals has always been one of the most challenging issues in labor law. Achievement of the best solution in this regard might seem quite challenging; However, a thorough analysis of the basis and criteria which underly justified dismissal on part of employer might help achieve the preferred solution. Therefore, in the present study, we seek to provide an answer to the question of determining the preferred standard governing the employer’s right of unilateral termination. As the conclusion of our analysis, application of standard of “Fair Dismissal”, which, as a general rule, governs other rules and regulations regarding the right of termination of employer, is preferred. Accordingly, courts should on a case-by-case basis, determine whether the dismissal accords from formal and material point of view with requirements of fairness or not and thus base his decision as to its validity accordingly.