جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "allocation of risk" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

One of the main functions of electronic banking is the transfer of funds as one of the most important means of payment, which is now widely popular for various reasons in the field of commerce. However, the fraud and the issuance of unauthorized payment orders has put the tool in jeopardy. The present article seeks to find an appropriate response to the unauthorized transaction risk allocation and to describe the responsibility of the parties to the transaction in the field of electronic banking, which will use an analytical, descriptive, and logical method to to doing comparative research in the legal system of Iran & US. The results of the research  shows that an unauthorized transaction is performed without the customer's actual or supposed appearance. Additionally, in cases where the transfer is based on the client's security policy, the customer is often assumed to be responsible. The objectives of risk allocation, including loss reduction, motivation, etc., provide a combination of possible risk allocation approaches so that, while accepting the bank's responsibility, limiting the limit for customer liability to prevent customer negligence in maintaining and maintaining access tools and hand codes To be found. The other results of this research are that Iran's legal system in this area is new, and there is a need for comprehensive regulation, and despite the fact that according to the rules of the principle is the responsibility of the bank, it is the responsibility of the customer's which emphasized in the judicial practice.

Iranian Civil Code has anticipated the risk of destruction of subject matter of transaction before delivery in the form of a default rule in Article 387 and introduces the transfer of risk of destruction as the result of delivery of subject matter of transaction. The default rule should economically reduce transaction costs and disclose information to reduce moral hazard. According to the legislator, the seller is responsible for the risk, since the seller can assign the risk with the lowest cost. This would be correct in most cases, but not always, and sometimes risk tolerance by the buyer seems more reasonable. This situation has convinced some authors to introduce the mentioned article as an irregularity and exception. Prediction of exceptions in this article will lead to further updating the provision. The parties should allocate the risk in a better manner. This study is intended to economically analyse the rule