In the past, there were different views and ideas about civil liability and compensation, therefore there might have been some negligence towards the rights of injured parties; that or the compensation might have been left unsaid, or with justifying the incentives of causing injury the injured person would be included in beneficiaries of public interests. Facing new ideas, nowadays these views have faded and general belief is that no harm should be left uncompensated In this regardthere are various theories about the basis of the responsibility of the owner of vehicle. Two of them are more prominent: presumption of fault and strict liability. In car accidents, industrial and social developments have raised the acceptance of strict liability. In addition, Islamic Jurisprudence has chosen a different basis, which is strict liability rather than fault assumption more than a thousand years ago. Having in mind the forth principle of Iran' s constitution which states all laws and regulations must be based on Islamic Law criteria; here the absolute liability theory is preferred.

It appears according to writings in common law and domestic law that it’s impossible to consider a single base for civil liability and consequently bailee’s liability in all cases. Liability based on negligence, strict liability and objective liability are the concepts that have been explained when discussing the basis of liability. However, it seems that strict liability cannot be an independent base for civil liability and consequently bailee’s liability. Th liability based on negligence is rooted in the invocation of damages to the behavior of damage creator and in fact, the negligence is not the principle. On the contrary, the objective liability can have an independent basis for liability. Of course, mentioning these concepts, necessarily does not imply their existence in both said legal systems, but there is notable evidence that support the existence of a thought-provoking affiliation in the foundation of liability in these two systems. Practically, it can be said that, in terms of the efficiency in suppressing the bailee’s breach of duty, considering the objective liability and in most strict state, domestic law has accepted absolute liability and is more successful than common law.

It has become known among the scholars of jurisprudence and law, based on the jurisprudential and legal advice, that the responsibility of the usurper is an objective responsibility. Responsibility for the objective realization of usurper has been raised in absolute terms, and often according to the famous principle, "The usurper is punished in the most severe conditions", no distinction has been made between assuming the imposition of enormous costs on the usurper or inflicting immaterial losses such as loss of life, honor and psychological harm on the usurper in case of an assignment to reject the same, assumption of the mingling of the property of the usurped with another's property and the possibility of its separation along with the extent of the destruction, the assumption of the mingling of the same usurped property with the equivalent property and between the assumption of conditions that do not have such consequences; and this assignment, is emphasized as irrevocable or inconvertible. In this regard, the question arises as to whether a solution can be found to depart from this application and resort to substitution in the assumption of the existence of the property or not? And if the answer is affirmative, what is its jurisprudential basis? The present study, using a descriptive-analytical method, has concluded that according to the famous view, or perhaps the consensus of jurisprudents on the obligation to reject the absolute in favor of the usurper, this ruling is a primary ruling and its abolition is possible as a secondary ruling based on conditions such as harm (ḍarar), distress and constriction, and desperate necessity. The present research defends and confirms this theory and emphasizes it through processing the theoretical foundations mentioned.

Whenever a person is the owner or possession guard of a vehicle in terms of the relation with that vehicle and that vehicle is damaged, he is liabile to compensate it.
In Iran law, according to the law of civil liabilityfault is the basis of civil liability. The liabile of the motor vehicle owner has the obligation to get compulsory third party insurance, and in French law, has the objective liability that is not failed even with the act of God. In case of non-engine vehicles, the owner would be liabile after the fault is proved; however, in France law, the fault goes to the guard of these vehicles. In case of water vehicles, Iran's maritime law points to the necessity of owner’s fault as a liabile. In January 1967, the Law 3 of France emphasized on the non-supposability of the ship owner’s fault. In case of aerial transportation vehicles, the existing laws point to the necessity of owner’s fault as a liabile. In French law, the liability of the aerial transportation vehicle is of typical, and is not canceled even by proving the compulsory accidents.

Akhze – be – saum is the obtaining of a sample by one (customer) from the seller in order to study the goods and enter negotiation thereafter for the purchase of that goods.We want to know are the goods in the customers hand, trust things, (because of the outhority for appropriation) or he has an absolute liability, namely he undertakes to give back the goods healthy or pay the price of them? There are different doctrines in this object, but for the correct answer we should know when the seller gives the goods to the customer there is an implied condition that the customer have to give back the goods healthy or pay the price of them and the customer accept this condition. (The only exeption is when there is a force majeure) This fundamental contract requires the customer to do so, for this, the circomstances are different from the time that a person gives a thing to one for trusting because the owner has a different intention.We should know that each authority from the owner for apporiation, (e.g in Akhze – be – saum) can not destroy the obligations of the person who obtain that thing and can not make him a trustee, for judging in these cases we should see the surrounding conditions. These results are not contrary with the article 631 of civil code.

According to the general rule of liability, a person is responsible for their own acts or acts committed under their instruction. Therefore, liability arising from the act of another person has exceptions and is contrary to the general rule. Another form of liability arising from the act of another person is known in common law as "vicarious liability," which is interpreted as proxy liability. In the civil liability sources of common law, the discussion of employer's liability for the actions of their employees has been addressed under the same title. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the latest theories on the foundations and conditions of this liability in Iran’s and England’s laws. According to Article 12 of the Iranian Civil Liability Law, employer's liability is based on the theory of fault and its specificity lies only in the fact that it arises from the act of another person. In contrast, in English law, this liability is considered distinctive from two perspectives: firstly, it is contrary to the principle of personal liability, and secondly, it falls within the framework of the theory of strict liability and is solely based on the element of harm.

The nature of duties in the public sector is such that the process of decision-making by government servants and managers can turn into a complex and intricate problem due to conflict of interests and roles. Today, we witness that in the era of ethical crisis and sharp decline in people’s trust in the public servants’ observance of ethical principles and legal rules an inevitable wave of responsibility has started among the organizational officials and researchers. The review of related literature acknowledges the significance of high subjective responsibility for establishment of a balance between contradictory interests and encountering intricate ethical issues as an inextricable part of public duty. The present paper, following a synthetic method, aims to identify mechanisms for enhancing subjective responsibility of public servants in 23 organizations offering public services. In the qualitative section of this research, three categories of mechanisms were identified, i.e. organizational, managerial and vocational mechanisms for promotion of subjective responsibilities. In quantitative section it was found that there is a significant gap between utilization of these mechanisms in the prevailing situation and the desirable situation of public services organizations of Iran.

Ethical sentences are being expressed in two compositional and declarative forms. In the compositional sentences, an ethical behavior, trait, or goal is considered as the focus of order and prohibition. In the declarative ones, the same affairs turn into the subject and they will be judged by a valuable or necessary concept. The concepts such as good, bad, correct, incorrect, ought to and ought not are containers of ethical propositions which are called “ethical concepts”. In addition, the concepts of perfection and desirability are embedded in the concept of ethical value; therefore, unlike the unrealistic-oriented viewpoints, because of objectivity of perfection, the ethical values are objective affairs. According to the concepts of duty and responsibility and their relation with value, one can consider all voluntary affairs of ethical actions, traits, and goals as ethical valuation. This is because of involvement of free will in ethical duties and with the relation between values and ethical duties, every voluntary affair will become the subject of judgment.

The punishment of multiple offenses faces fundamental challenges to justification. By leaving aside the comparison of multiplicity of Ta'zir crimes with the multiplicity of Hudud and the amendments to Article 134 of the Islamic Penal Code, the rational justification of the punishment of the multiplicity of Ta'zir has become necessary. Therefore, this article by using a descriptive-analytical method, in an attempt to reconcile the institution of crime multiplicity with the philosophy of punishment and in the light of a comparative study of this issue in the three legal systems of Egypt, Germany and the United Kingdom on behalf of three different legal systems, intends to ask the question that ‘’what are the desirable principles and models for determining the punishment of real multiplicity of Ta'zir crimes? The British legal system, in an attempt to strike a balance between the two goals of justice and correction of the offender, has proposed a model of the relative Aggregation of punishments, which is a combination of the model of the real Aggregation and the judicial Aggregation of punishments. German and Egyptian law follow the real aggregation model and have limited this model. The result is that the punishment of multiple crimes in Iranian law due to ambiguity in purpose, has followed all existing models and this has caused in some cases, the severity of the penalty for multiple offenses and sometimes less than other legal systems. This hesitation has been both against apparent and real justice and against the correctional purpose of punishments.

There would be various defences performed by the accused or his attorney in the criminal proceedings. Reference to justificatory factors or excusatory factors is a part of them. Justificatory factors refer to those objective circumstances which justify a criminal act or make it rightous. Excusatory factors, on the other hand, denotes personal characteristc or subjective circumstances of the perpetrator that abandons the criminal proceedings from the subject. Both justificatory and excusatory factors, if achieved, stop the punishment of the perpetrator, but they differ in the possibility of using security and training measures, civil liability of the accused, self defence, the possibility of the punishment of abetors and accossories, burden of proof and procedures. The similarity of the above mentioned factores emanates from disrelationship of justificatory and excusatory factors of criminal responsibility. It seems that it would be fruitful to apply other tittles which would clearly indicat the effects and nature of the above mentioned factores. Nature, similar examples and the effects of justificatory and excusatory factors will be discussed briefly from this respect in this paper.