جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تقصیر » در نشریات گروه « مدیریت »

In this paper, the discussion about the civil liability of minors and mental patients has been discussed in the form of a comparative study, with the descriptive-analytical research method. And this central question has been answered that basically, what criteria should be used to measure the harmful behavior of minors and people with mental disorders?. A look at the history of civil liability clearly indicates that the law of civil liability has always been at a dilemma  in answering this question: On the one hand, emotional, moral, fairness and substantive justice issues require the determination or modification of the civil  liability of these people, and on the other hand, the final goal of the law of civil liability, i.e. restoring the previous situation and compensating for unjustified losses, complex personal explorations, mental and psychological explorations encountered with serious doubts!. These doubts have caused the legal systems to choose different points of view in this regard: Some have taken the side of the loser and defended the rule of objective criteria in the law of civil liability. And some people are also inclined towards supporting the minor and the insane and have adopted the subjective criterion of fault; Despite this, it seems that we should choose a middle approach and use the " Relative objectivity " criterion as a criterion for evaluating the behavior of minors and patients with mental disorders and based on this, proposed a more flexible and disciplined interpretation of "conventional behavior" in Articles 951 to 953 of the Civil Code.

During the preliminary negotiations for concluding commercial contracts, it is possible that one of the parties does not content to the negotiations with the other party and at the same time, discuss the desired commercial contract with other persons; because parallel negotiations make it possible to obtain goods and services with more desirability. Acceptance and application of the principle of freedom of contract in the legal system of different countries requires that, in principle, a person who has conducted parallel negotiations not be held responsible. However, in some cases, the parallel negotiator may be held liable under the rules of the contractual or non-contractual liability. If in the preliminary negotiations, one or both parties have undertaken not to negotiate in parallel with the third party for a certain period of time, the non-fulfillment of this obligation will result a contractual liability. In the absence of such an obligation, fault in parallel negotiations can result non-contractual liability. Both types of liability, which are explicitly accepted in the law of some countries, such as France and Britain, are, as the case may be, compatible with the rules and principles governing contractual and non-contractual liability in Iranian law.

In accordance with the article 336 of Islamic criminal law, in the case of collision of two vehicles, both sides are responsible and there is no difference whether both are guilty or both are not. However, it has been mentioned that if one of the drivers is guilty, only that driver is considered responsible.Unfortunately, few lawyers misinterpret this article and claim that in any collision, in which one driver is guilty and the other is not, both sides are considered responsible.In this article, it is tried to represent a correct interpretation of the mentioned article based on judicial explanations.