جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « متصدی حمل » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Usually, in the international transportation of goods, the carrier uses various forms to transport, an important part of which is carried by sea, and this causes to governing the several conventions in the legal relationship between the shipper and the carrier. The Rotterdam rules have been set up with the aim of harmonizing the rules governing transportation which the carriage of goods by sea is the one forms of transporting proccess . The regulations have chosen the "door to door" regime. Persons who performing or undertake  the obligations on behalf of the carrier or under his supervision in the port to port area are the same as the carrier in terms of liability and defense conditions, and these persons are called the maritime performing  party. The possibility of direct action is an improvement in comparing with prior rules. The present research is an attempt to know what is the performing parties and the rules of them

Many contractual and administrative services of carriers, especially in the field of sea transportation, are provided by their commercial representatives, so that in most cases, traders, especially shippers, only deal with the representative and basically do not communicate with the carrier or the ship owner. This issue is especially prominent when the shipping operation is carried out by a foreign shipping company. However, after damage to the cargo or violation of the carrier's obligations for any reason, the commercial representative benefits from the immunity resulting from the "principle of non-responsibility of the representative for original actions" and in this regard, the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court has considered the case of the sender against the commercial representative of the carrier to be inadmissible in the unanimous ruling No. 29 dated 10/7/1363.This is despite the fact that the said decision was issued by some business representatives regardless of their role as a contract holder, and on the other hand, in the case of foreign transport operators, it obliges traders to refer to foreign transport companies that do not have any property or assets in Iran, and in this way, many maritime losses of traders remain uncompensated.

Carriage of air cargo is done by air carriers (Airlines) in all countries. There are different rules and regulation in this field in order to regulate the relationship between the carrier and the cargo owner and to determine the liability of either side against the other in this relationship. This carriage is done either in domestic level and within the territory of a country, or in international level and from one country to another country. To accommodate this, the regulations are made for both levels of carriage i.e. domestic and international. This article is going to study the rules on the carriage of air cargo in international level and for this purpose a case on the subject and the decisions made by courts on it is studied in details. These decisions which were made between 2018 to 2020 are issued by two trial and appeal courts of Tehran province in Iran.

Occurrence of unpredictable incidents and not fulfillment of (or delay) the commitments by airlines are so common and inevitable. In many cases, not transferring or delay in carriage of the passengers goes beyond a simple problem and make big mental dilemma for passengers which some of them have long-lasting effect on them. In this situation wisdom, conscience, religious jurisprudence and law cannot ignore it. In this paper we try to recognize the mental injuries which maybe occur during the flight or before or after it and examine them legally. In this regards we will review the international community and government1s` point of view to these mental injuries and after that we will try to find the situation of these injuries and its indemnification in Sharia and Iranian legal system, especially recovery them by monetary methods. Finally we try to examine the judicial precedents of Iranian courts in relation to mental injuries of aviation passengers and how they have dealt to these injuries and whether they comply with Sharia, Iranian legal system and International regulation or not.

Evidential value of bill of lading concerning the cargo specification is confirmed by all international conventions. This function works unless the carrier insert reservation in the bill of lading. The validity of reserve is an issue which is less addressed by Iranian doctrines, as one may infer from reservation non-liability clause which itself is declared to be null and void by the international conventions. So, does the validity of reserve depends on agreement by the consignor? Or shall it be reasoned in a way that the grounds for the reserve shall also be inserted in the bill of lading in order to be effective? On the other hand, the carrier might refuse to insert reserve in the bill of lading either personally or per request of the consignor and receiving a letter of indemnity from the latter. Is carrier liable vis-à-vis the consignee for ignoring the reserve and concealing the truth and shall the letter of indemnity be considered as valid and effective? The legitimacy and validity of conditions of reserve on one hand, and the effects of reservation on the other hand are among the issues which are analyzed in this article in view of comparative study of English and French legal systems and international transport conventions. It is concluded that the carrier’s reserve in the bill of lading is a unilateral act which does not require the consent of the consignor except under CMR Convention under which the effectiveness of reserve is dependent on the consignor only vis-à-vis the latter and not towards the third parties, i.e. the BL holders. However, the reserve shall be justified in order to be valid and the cause of reservation shall be specified together with the reserve as well, under the later international regulations (Hamburg Rules). In terms of consequences of reservation, it is worth noting that by reservation the burden of proof shall lie upon the BL holder while without it the carrier himself should have proved that the damage had been incurred before his taking delivery of the cargo. Also, the agreement not to insert reserve in the BL is effective between the carrier and the consignor unless they have an intent to defraud the third parties. However, the above agreement or the Letter of Indemnity in substitution of reservation could not be adduced by its parties against the third parties.

The goods shall be subject to customs formalities while crossing national borders in international transportation. The main duty to meet the above formalities lies against the cargo owner which, in deed, is assignable to an agent _ who might be the carrier. However, the carrier itself is obliged to submit a summary declaration of the total cargo before the customs authorities prior to the cargo unloading. The summary declaration is submitted based on the transport documents so that the governing rules could only be construed in line with the transportation law. The legal basis of summary declaration, the exemption from this duty, the carrier who shall declare, the legal nature of manifest and the remedy of non- compliant declaration are some of the issues that are dealt with in this article. This article is distinct in this respect that it has analyzed a customs legal rule from the perspective of transport law.

What appears from contract for carriage of cargo is that it is concluded between the sender and carrier, under which the carrier is obligated to carry the goods to the destination and deliver them to the consignee. However, this appearance might not reflect the truth, in that the consignee is the main beneficiary in the transport operation consequently, he might not only be entitled under the contract of carriage but also be obligated by the same contract. As a result, this question might arise that whether the consignee could be deemed as a party to contract of carriage or not? Some believe that the consignee is a third party vis-à-vis the contract of carriage, while others see him a contract party either in the form of a bilateral contract (omitting the sender from the circle) or a tripartite contract. On the other hand, the same question arises concerning the carrier as in most of the cases more than one carrier is involved in the carriage operation. It is worth noting that the subject of this article, which is of many legal consequences on the parties involved, is analyzed with a comparative study of French and English law and also the international transportation conventions.

In general, the liability of carriers towards the cargo owner arise out of an undue carriage of goods. Nevertheless, the carrier might be obliged to perform the customs formalities of the cargo and the liability arising out of it has been hardly considered by the authors in the field of transport law. This article tries to answer the question that whether the carrier has any obligation for performance of customs formalities in case of no specification in the contract and if the answer is positive what are the conditions for this kind of carrier liability, so that whether it is covered by the international carriage conventions or it is subject to particular regulations out of the conventions. Finally, this aspect of carrier’s liability has been analyzed as per the international conventions for carriage of goods and the Iranian Customs Act as well.

The steps of deliver the goods by its owner to the transportation enterprise and from this person to the consignee in or the costume in the destination is a considerable issue. Sometimes the synchronous liability of the transportation enterprise and the costume happens which require studying the national law and international conventions. In this article, the maritime law 1443, the Hague rules and Homburg and Rotterdam conventions are studied concerning this subject.

The Freight Forwarders are one of the institutions that are active in the field of transportation. They are more active in the field of international commercial transportation, especially combined or multimodal transportation. To show the About the importance of this institution, shall tell importance of this institution, one may say that in transportation process, using the services of these institutions is essential. Despite the important role of the Freight Forwarders in the transportation industry, unfortunately, puts doubtsthere is ambiguity about the nature of the obligations and responsibilities that exist, so that the institution is paralleled considered as an equal to theones in charge of transportation with the same responsibilitiesin the carrier considered and responsibility for the same Carrier been raised. Also about the bases of Freight Forwarder>s liability, iIn different legal systems various and sometimes vague approaches have been adopted various and sometimesvague approachesabout the bases of Freight Forwarder>s liability. This can be caused by a lackof international conventions, weak legislation and silence of regulations relating to the transport. This study is trying to examininge The bases of Freight Forwarder>s contractual liabilityon the two different approaches (Presumed-fault and Strict liability), and in different regulations, including regulations of FIATA, and secondarily on the Llaw of different countries like Iran, England, France, Belgium, Italy and Spain are examined. Finally, it is significant that the «Presumed-fault» as the minimum approach is acceptable, of course, exacerbate the bases of Freight Forwarder>s liability with regard to the specialized nature of this institution, is tenable. theThe research in this paper is a crossmethodology is descriptive and analytical.

This paper investigates the responsibilities of carrier (transportation) in Islamic law. We will see that there are four different systems regarding the issue: -a system based on the proveing fault, -a system based on assuming fault, -a system based on assuming the responsibility,-a system based on the mere responsibility, All these systems are seen in the Islamic law. There are different view points regarding responsibility of transportation among as there are among lawyers. Although mostoften it is assuming responsibility of carrier and the only way of getting of the problem is to declare the caues of the loss.