جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « third party intervention » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Defense based on civil liability is divided into different categories based on its multiple meanings and diverse functions. One of the important types of defense in civil liability is the defense based on limiting the amount of responsibility, the proof of which without negating the responsibility of the defendant, simply reduces the scope of the defendant's responsibility and the amount of damages payable by him. Despite the importance of defenses based on the limitation of liability in harmonizing the rules of civil liability in terms of compensation and also creating a favorable legal order in civil liability claims, the examination of this type of defense as an independent topic in our legal system has been neglected. The current research, with descriptive analytical methods and with the approach of emphasizing the civil responsibility of the police, seeks to provide a coherent basis for the classification of defense types based on the limitation of responsibility in civil liability lawsuits through a systematic interpretation of domestic laws. In this regard, three general categories of defenses based on liability limitation in civil liability lawsuits can be identified and examined that are respectively based on the defense based on role of the victim in connection with the accident (including the contributory negligence of the victim and also the breach of the duty to mitigate damages), the defense based on intervention of third parties and Multiple Tortfeasors in the occurrence of the accident and in the end, the defense based on good faith of the Tortfeasor is divided.

With the expansion of social and legal relationships among people in the society, the conflict between the interests of them is raised, and the result of this is revealed in the various claims and multi-party cases. In the regulation of the procedure, the rights of third parties should be taken into account in order to allow the possibility to any person who may claim a right or interest in the dispute, in a transparent process. Multi-party cases in state courts have been identified, irrespective of the agreement of the parties concerned, but in arbitration because of free will of the parties as a main principal that governs on to the arbitration proceedings, the entry of third parties even if their interests were subject to arbitration, It was not possible without the consent of the parties, because privacy and confidentiality are the main features of arbitration and someone other than the parties to the arbitration not only could not be involved in the course of the proceedings as a party but could not even attend the hearing. This procedure was changed by adopting UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, and third parties were allowed not only in litigation but also as a party to the dispute, and this changed the main features of arbitration.

Additional lawsuits are not well known in the Iranian civil procedure legal system, and there has been little discussion of this in legal articles and books. According to the legislature in Article 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional lawsuits one of the types of ancillary claim and it is clear to those who know that the design and defense of such claim requires compliance with the procedures set forth in the law mentioned above. Unlike other ancillary claims (counterclaim, impleader and third party intervention), the rules of civil proceedings do not examine its effects and rulings in detail and independently. The question posed in this article is how to properly plan an additional lawsuit in Iranian civil procedure that would logically have a close relationship with the origin of the main lawsuit. The achievement of this article is the submission of an application as a more logical alternative to the petition and the presentation of some new conclusions in accordance with the law and inspired by judicial procedure. By examining the concept, necessity, conditions and rulings of these disputes and analyzing them, the authors have tried to take a small step by shedding light on obscure points.

If bill of exchange or cheque was not accepted by the drawee, holder of that bills could resource to other liable parties or that want to take a guarantee before maturity. Acceptance by the third party is a method to avoid holder’s resource to issuer and endorser before maturity. This action can be done partially or wholly. This acceptance can be done after having done a protest for non-acceptance. Considering the legal nature of acceptance for honor based on the doctrine of offer faces with this important issue that it cannnot cover all types of this act. The Benevolent intervention in another doctrine that is a far argument and thus cannot cover all types of the act. The same problem exists on the agency doctrine. Instead of these doctrines, unilateral obligation doctrine ignores one of the involved willingness's in creating that act. Based on guaranty contract doctrine not only we cannot open any door but also it creates new problem. Moreover, this doctrine is contradiction with interpretation of parties' willingness. It is, therefore a special legal action that involves bill of exchange obligation and arises rights and responsibilities.