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

The imposition of sanctions against Iran over many years has impacted crucial economic sectors, including the banking, energy, and industry as well as the health and medical systems and the scientific field of the country, leading to significant losses for natural and legal persons and raised questions regarding the methods of compensating and evaluating these damages. This research explores the forms of compensation in domestic and international law and examines the evaluation of material, moral and punitive damages. The compensation methods in domestic and international law generally follow a similar approach. Material damages can be compensated financially, whereas moral damages might not be adequately addressed through financial means alone; in such cases, non-financial methods like formal apologies, acceptance of violations, and expressing regret are utilized. Material damages can be evaluated with high accuracy using case-by-case criteria, ensuring the rights of the victims are not violated, and macroeconomic variables can be applied in extensive lawsuits. For moral damages, due to the complexity of calculating, a mixed criterion is preferable. Finally, in assessing punitive damages, the prolonged and severe impact of sanctions, along with the extent of material and moral damages, should considered.

The awarding of damages as compensation for trademark infringement has increasingly gained importance in the modernized economies of the world. The calculation and assessment of damages resulting from trademark rights violations have always posed a challenge for both judicial courts and official experts, as well as for the owners of these rights in proving the causal link between the infringing act and the incurred damage. For this reason, some countries' laws have introduced the concept of nominal or statutory damages alongside actual damages. Generally, the benefit that the infringer gains from violating trademark rights exceeds the damage suffered by the rights holder. Consequently, in England, the trademark owner has the option to choose between receiving actual damages and the infringer's profits. However, with the increase in trademark infringements and the growth of counterfeit goods, courts in the United States have recognized that awarding punitive damages may serve as a necessary deterrent to protect the interests of trademark owners.

Imagine that A has witnessed an incident in which B injures or kills C. It is undoubtedly painful to witness, but does it also follow that one can recover damages for suffering emotional distress as the result of witnessing the accident? The recognition of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional harm, also known as NIED, has been one of the ways that tort law has attempted to provide a remedy for the emotionally injured. Nevertheless, the relatively new tort has raised many questions. In the U.S. legal system, different criteria have been proposed over the years to allow for NIED liability. For example, the impact rule and the zone of danger have been amongst the most popular. This Article focuses on the latest exception which is the bystander liability and its evolution. It is the liability to a person who witnesses a person being injured or killed due to the carelessness of another person. This Article compares the U.S. common law precedent with Iran’s civil liability regime and concludes that bystander emotional harm can also be recognized as a valid cause of action for redressing this type of emotional harm in the Iranian legal system. Bystander liability comes with the caveat of close relationship between the bystander and the injured individual. As such, this requirement should be based on the norms of the community that may differ from one another.

In the realm of civil procedures, the right to bring a lawsuit traditionally hinges upon the claim of the injured party seeking compensation for harm caused by the actions of the defendant. According to this conventional perspective, the initiation of a lawsuit by a third party, without the consent of the injured party, has been deemed inconceivable and lacking legal rationale. This article challenges the fundamentals of this prevailing approach, demonstrating that in specific cases where the beneficiary faces difficulties or is unwilling to engage in legal proceedings, the involvement of a third party as the instigator of the claim can be legally justifiable and desirable. This alternative perspective calls for a reevaluation of existing laws and regulations regarding third-party claims, ultimately enhancing the societal function of liability law and facilitating access to legal procedures for resolving disputes. In addition to addressing the issues and ambiguities associated with this approach, the article also explores potential challenges and solutions for resolving them. In some legal systems, formalizing third-party claims can enhance the effectiveness of the legal framework, better protect citizens, and establish behavioral norms within society. When determining the responsible party in civil liability claims, legal rules have undergone significant changes, resulting in multiple criteria and interpretations for assessing the scope of an individual's responsibility for  harmful actions. Today, causation is not solely based on identifying the closest cause, and individuals may consider themselves defendants if they can demonstrate a more reasonable position in preventing harm. Furthermore, the pursuit of damages against individuals with financial advantages or superior risk management capabilities has been defended. Conversely, the criteria for identifying the plaintiff have been less contentious. Despite minimal legal debate regarding the concept of loss and its sustainable forms, civil procedures universally emphasize the requirement of the injured party to initiate a claim. The only accepted basis for determining the plaintiff is that the individual suffered harm due to the defendant's injurious act. The intersection of civil procedures and civil liability is where third-party lawsuits for compensation come into play. Traditionally, the purpose of civil procedures has been to facilitate the compensation of damages through the law of liability, with the injured party serving as the initiator of the legal process and claimant for compensation. Consequently, the initiation of a claim for compensation by a third party has lacked legal rationale and practical viability. However, a reinterpretation of the essentials acknowledges the victim's desire to file a lawsuit. This approach revitalizes the societal role of law and recognizes that, beyond individual-centered aspects of proceedings, third parties may bring claims if the failure of the injured party to do so disrupts social order. Such an approach can deter reckless behavior and the violation of societal norms. While the criterion for identifying the claimant remains fundamental in litigation, it acquires a broader interpretation. Claimant status is extended to any individual who, by informing the legal framework about the occurrence of harm, requests legal proceedings and the sanctioning of the injuring party. Implementing this approach, which offers numerous advantages, necessitates legislative amendments to regulate its use. Based on the arguments presented, it is recommended that legal reforms clarify that the primary rule for seeking compensation is for the injured party to initiate the action. However, if a third party initiates the action, and after verifying the accuracy of the information provided, the court hears the claim by notifying the injured party. Upon confirming the claim's validity, a portion of the compensation will be awarded to the third party. If the victim declines to accept the remainder, it can be allocated to a fund aimed at reducing similar losses in the future. This article explores the possibility of third-party claims for damages as an exceptional and conditional approach with legal advantages. Key questions addressed in this article include the justification of third-party lawsuits based on general principles and rules, their advantages and disadvantages, their validity within Iran's legal system, and potential solutions for harnessing their benefits while mitigating their drawbacks.

The concept of good faith is recognized in many legal systems and entails significant implications. It has received particular attention and influence in German and English law across various fields. The liability of non-owner possessors (in both legal and material terms) represents one of the most important areas. This paper aims to examine the possibility of the impact of good faith on the liability of non-owner possessors regarding damages caused to the subject of possession, as well as the quality of this impact, through a library-based comparative analysis. In German and English law, the recognition of the concept of good faith and the emphasis on attributing damages to the conduct of the possessor to recognize their liability, alongside the influence of good faith in establishing this attribution, have allowed the good faith of the possessor to eliminate or mitigate their liability in both tortious (obligatory) and contractual contexts. However, in domestic law, the influence of jurisprudence and the scope of the concepts of usurpation and quasi-usurpation, particularly in cases of material possessions, limits the support for a possessor acting in good faith, and it seems that the solution to protecting a possessor acting in good faith lies in distinguishing between the usurper and the quasi-usurper. On the other hand, in legal possessions, the attribution of damages to the conduct of the possessor receives more importance, and to some extent, the situation is similar to German and English law.

"Damages in lieu of performance" is one of the three types of damages for breach of contract provided by the German Civil Code. The main objective of this research is to examine this remedy in German law. Specifically, this study addresses the question of how, in a legal system that upholds the principle of contractual necessity and considers specific performance as the primary remedy for a breach of contract, damages can substitute for the actual fulfillment of the obligation. While the term "damages in lieu of performance" is not explicitly used in Iranian laws, certain instances of this type of damage have been explored in legal literature. By comparing these two concepts within the German and Iranian legal systems, it becomes evident that the German Civil Code provides precise and effective rules governing damages in lieu of performance, thereby offering a solid foundation for the comparative adaptation of such rules in Iranian law.

Contracts are very important tools for regulating business relationships and reducing the risks associated with it. Due to the importance of contracts, it is necessary to be careful in setting them up and consider the key terms and conditions to protect your interests. The purpose of this article is the terms effective on risk management in contracts.
This article is descriptive and analytical. The materials and data are also qualitative and Materials and data are non-qualitative.  data collection has been used in the collection of materials and data.
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are respected.
The condition of obligation to compensate contractual damages, the condition of exemption from liability and the condition of force majeure, the change of circumstances and the condition of contract adjustment, the condition of paying the price in currency or gold, the condition of the governing law and the condition of insurance are among the most important conditions affecting risk management in contracts. Contractual allocation of risk based on the principle of contractual freedom and considering the preferences and limitations of the parties in maximizing contractual returns is considered the most effective and efficient method of allocation.
Since the source of risk is a set of certain events or conditions that alone or in combination with other elements cause uncertainty or risk and as a result, effects are actualized that lead to unexpected deviations in the goals of the contract, including profit. or losses, therefore, effective terms on risk management in contracts can lead to risk reduction and help the stability and continuity of contracts.

According to Article 391 of the Civil Code and the unified judgments 733-1393/07/15 and 811-1400/01/04 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, if the sold things has been determined as belonging to another, the sale contract is null. Therefore in case of unawareness of the buyer, the vendor must pay the difference through price which is paid as consideration and the actual value of the sold object on the day of sale as compensation in addition to returning the price. The apparent interpretation of the aforementioned provisions limits them to the nullity of the sale contract due to unauthorization regarding the owner's rejection. But firstly it’s good to know that nullity causes damages in other types of contracts rather than sales. Then it should be known that nullity can be caused by reasons differing from the cause of belonging to a third party. Thirdly, must be said that the contract may cause damages not in terms of nullity, but in other types of dissolution. This research aims to answer the question whether it is possible to apply the provisions related to the damage caused by the nullity of unauthorized sale to other cases of nullity and dissolution of all contracts or not? And assuming the answer to the previous question is positive, what are the examples of the implementation of the aforementioned provisions? The collection of information in this research is library-based and the method of presenting is analytical.

In this essay it has been studied that from the point of view of Iranian and Egyptian law and Islamic jurisprudence and with an analytical-descriptive method, on what basis and under what circumstances, arises the breach of the contract creates a right to compensation and the right of termination. In Egyptian law, after breaching an obligation, the oblige is free to keep the contract and receive damages or terminate it, while in Iranian law and Islamic jurisprudence, the first right available is the obligation of the obligor to fulfill his obligation. In Iranian law and Islamic jurisprudence, the right to terminate an agreement is the result of the failure of specific performance, not a confrontation of obligations or a fundamental breach. It is based on the rules of Tort, not breach of contract. Also, in Egyptian law, contrary to Iranian law and Islamic jurisprudence, one of the conditions for claiming damages or terminating a contract is to send a notice to the obligor to fulfill the obligation. Against Article 230 Iranian civil code, regarding on agreement on damages in Egyptian legal system courts have authority to adjust the agreed amount. . . . . . . . . . .

As a new technology, the Internet of Things has accelerated the transformative role of digital technologies, and the use of Internet of Things devices by consumers is increasing significantly every year. The relationship between the risks associated with these products and the use of this technology may cause problems and damage. One of these issues is the damage that is caused to people and property, and one of the most important goals is to determine which person can be attributed for the damage. And what is the responsibility? The present article, with the analytical-descriptive method, is trying to study the basic rules of civil liability due to product production by stating the existing theories of the basis of responsibility in terms of the current situation and the latest developments in this field, in such a way that the group of manufacturers of IoT devices due to production The defective and damaging product will have liability, the basis of liability of IoT device manufacturers will generally be based on the product liability theory, and the strict liability theory applies to high-risk commercial users such as the medical sector, and the negligence liability theory is suitable for non-commercial users. And the theory of responsibility for breach of warranty can be applied between the manufacturers of Internet of Things devices and their buyers and users. And this issue has gained double importance due to its novelty and various applications, and despite the feeling of emptiness in domestic laws, the clarification of this issue is an undeniable necessity.

Inconclusive cause is regarded as a topic with relevance in both civil and criminal law, with its application in areas where the perpetrator of the damage is unknown. Findings of this study, which have been conducted through the practical-analytical method of research, show that 4 views related to distribution of responsibility exist; First, neither is responsible since fault of no-one can be proven. Second, they have shares responsibility. Another view places the responsibility on the State, and the damages are payable via insurance funds or public funds (Bait-al-Maal). Based on the findings of another view, emphasises on balloting (lot), which was also accepted in the previous Islamic Penal Code of Iran. In French law, if the plaintiff has filed lawsuit against a group under the principle of error, the jurisprudence does not base the liability of each member of group, but takes into account their collective error. In Iranian Civil Liability Code, partaking in a group, a member of which has conducted an error result in shared responsibility for all members of that group.

The civil law of Iran and France has several guarantees for the fulfillment of contractual obligations, and the obligation is one of them. The legal nature of this type of non-enforcement guarantee has been the subject of much legal research. The issue is important because its amount is significant in some cases and the imbalance in economic value between the obligations arising from the contract and the obligation can be seen and that the authority of the judge in Iranian law to review it is limited. Be. In recent amendments, French law, in addition to defining the concept of this guarantee in other clauses, has explained the legal regime, but ambiguities remain in order to identify the criminal nature of the obligation and distinguish it from other guarantees of non-performance of obligations. The analysis of the above cases and the possibility of its application in Iranian law is the motive of this research, especially since an important part of the lawsuits is the demand for obligation and it is necessary for the legislator to fill the legal gaps in this field and from a classical point of view. Give up.

In the voyage charters to avoid delay in loading and unloading operations as a demurrage. A condition is included as demurrage, based on which the charterer undertakes to carry out loading and unloading operations within a specified period (lay time). The closest reference to demurrage in civil law should be considered as 'penalty clause'. In various legal systems there are various theories about the nature of demurrage; Including contractual penalties, complementary freights, damages that results in important results of each of these theories, and a detailed understanding of the nature of demurrage, helping to find demurrage rules, and determining the nature of demurrage is the source of important works, so it should not be considered as a theoretical issue. During the voyage, there are various damage to each of which are compensated for. In this article, while addressing various aspects of the matter, the nature of demurrage and types of marine damages will be discussed and investigated.

The principle of prompt, adequate and effective compensation for marine pollution damages has always faced many challenges in the field of marine transportation. One of these challenges is to guarantee the compensation for probable catastrophic losses through a unified system of international compulsory insurance. Compulsory insurance in the framework of an international legal system of civil liability for marine pollution has received some oppositions by some countries, including the United States. On the other hand, many countries have presented many reasons for developing compulsory insurance in the international arena for all types of marine pollution. This article, through an analytical method, will examine and evaluate the reasons provided for and against a compulsory insurance for all types of marine pollution. It emphasizes that compulsory insurance for all types of marine pollution caused by oil or hazardous and noxious substances is necessary, for reasons such as guaranteeing a source of compensation for pollution victims, cover environmental damage and facilitate the access to national authorities and financial resources of the responsible persons and its insurer.

Banks, whether public or private, as one of the most important economic organisations by mobilisation of financial resources through taking deposits and with the intention of making profits make investments and give loans to their customers. The expansion of economic relations and the needs of the people to banks requires a carful investigation of the legal nature of banks’ relationship with their customers whether legal or natural persons or otherwise. In the past, the banking was simple and elementary. In such an environment in the case of emergence of any problem or issue and in case of causing damages to banks’ customers, it was easy to identify the cause of the damage as the banks and their customers were in interaction in person and their relationship was not complex and extensive as they are now. Nowadays, given the technological advances and the advent of electronic communications has led the banks to utilise these technologies and provide new services via new methods to their customers. The use of such new technologies has led to new complexities between banks and their customers. Given such complex relations, it is possible that customers suffer some damages and they seek compensation.  Depending on whether such damages are could come under a contractual relations or be based on a tort, the method of compensation varies. Banking contracts such as  interest free loans, Joaleh, Mozarbeh as example of a contractual relationship between banks and their customers. However, the legal basis of the contractual and non-contractual liability of the of banks vis-à-vis their customers could be found in in the general and special legislations such as Articles 11 and 12 of the Civil Liability Act and also Article 35 of the Monetary and Banking Act according to which “each bank is liable to compensate the damages which has been caused to their customers  due to the banking operations of the bank”. Based on the prima facie understating of this Article, there is no need to established the a bank’s fault and only the relationship between the damages caused to the customer and the bank’s activity is enough. There are a number of legal vacuums and defects in the relationship between banks and their customers. Nowadays such deficiencies and failures in the banking sector do exist. Therefore, taking into account general legal rules and principles of civil liability, no damages should be left without compensation. The banking deposit should also follow the same route.

The realization of the civil liability requires three pillars: the pillar of loss, damaging action and the causal nexus between the damage and the incident (causation). The “loss” element is more important than the others. Generally, law views “loss” compensable when it has certain conditions and criteria as in the Iranian legal system “the direct loss” and in English legal system “loss being too remote” is of the conditions of the recoverable losses which have been introduced. In the Iranian legal system if a harm and loss in indirect way and through intermediary is caused injury to a body or property it is not recoverable and its reason is there is doubt in attributing the indirect loss to the agent of loss. The approach of The Iranian legal system and English legal system to the indirect damages is not the same. The concept of indirect loss in the Iranian legal system relates to the pillar of causation while in English law has a close relation to the reasonably foreseeable principle. In the Iranian legal system, it is a principle that indirect loss is not recoverable but in English law in most cases is recoverable. Meanwhile determining the position of indirect loss the present paper has propounded the possibility of the compensation of indirect loss under some certain circumstances in the legal Iranian system.

According to Articles 227 and 229 of the Civil Code of Iran, breach of obligation due to the act and will of the obligor is one of the conditions for claiming contractual damages. But in "non- infringement breach of contract" such as breach due to excuse and breach, breach of obligation can not be attributed to the act and will of the obligee. The purpose of this study is to answer the question why excuses and complaints are the same in terms of being foreign, but their legal effects are different from the rules of compensation.

This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.

In the Iranian legal system and Islamic jurisprudence, breach of contract is divided into two categories: breach attributable and non-attributable to the act and will of the obligee. "breach" should also be interpreted as "inability to be attributed to the will of the obligee" because the word "external" means anything that is outside the existence of the obligee.

this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The difference in excuse can be as a result of evaluating factors such as: the concept of external factor of breach, the degree of anticipation of obstacles and the degree of survival of the same breach of obligation.

One example of multiple property liability for single damage is the liability of apartment owners for damage to common areas. In Iranian law, the customary invocation of a harmful act to the perpetrator is the basis of responsibility, and the theory of fault can be helpful in recognizing the custom and unusual behavior of apartment owners in caring for common areas. According to the rule " He who has the sheep is liable for the penalty", the owners, as the beneficiaries of the common parts, are the guarantors of the preservation and maintenance of these parts, According to some jurists, the connection between damage and benefit makes the owners responsible for the damage caused by these parts in the first place.According to Articles 4 and 10 of the Apartment Ownership Law,each owner's share and obligation The cost of common parts is determined by the area of private parts; now the question arises, assuming the damage caused by the common and general parts of the building, who is responsible and what is the distribution of responsibility?Assuming that the damages are not due to non-observance of construction technical principles and the builder pays special attention, each of the common owners is responsible for maintaining and paying the running costs of the building in proportion to their own share of the total dedicated share of the building.It is also jointly and severally liable for damages to other third parties and the rule of joint or several liability will not apply to the owners

The reparation of damages and access to an effective remedy is one the most important method of international law for protection of human rights. On December 16, 2005, the United Nation General Assembly has adopted the resolution on “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, which is a comprehensive document on the right of remedy and reparation of damages for violation of human rights. In Iran’s legal system, the reparation of damage is in the framework of civil liability and so this question arise in what extent the Iranian mechanism for reparation of damage is consistent with the international norms, recognized in the resolution of basic principles and what is its role for providing an effective remedy and reparation. Addressing such issue can be beneficial either for better understanding of international mechanism and also for enrichment of national legal system. Regarding the fact that international norms in reparation have roots in national laws, finding the similarities between national and international mechanism is predictable.