Mehdi Fallah kharyeki
Abstract
Section (c) of Article 1 of compulsory insurance act of 2016, put under the law any accident caused by vehicles due to fortuitous events. In legal writings generally fortuitous events considered as force majeure, but this notion of fortuitous events with a lot of compulsory insurance act articles does ...
Read More
Section (c) of Article 1 of compulsory insurance act of 2016, put under the law any accident caused by vehicles due to fortuitous events. In legal writings generally fortuitous events considered as force majeure, but this notion of fortuitous events with a lot of compulsory insurance act articles does not seem compatible. Hence, the question arises that "fortuitous events" in the compulsory insurance law, what does it mean and what is its impact? Review of legal writings show that, according to some French lawyers, Force Majeure and Fortuitous Event (Cas Fortuit), have different meaning but, in the writings of our law, such a conceptual distinction was known verbal argument and both, has studied as Force Majeure in general meaning. However, the use of such distinction between force majeure and fortuitous event is very revealing for unambiguous interpretation of compulsory insurance act of 2016. In order to illustrate the effect of this distinction, in the first part of this article, the concept of fortuitous event in general and specific and deficiencies of application of this concept is analyzed, so that in the second part, concept of fortuitous event and its effect is considered in the compulsory insurance act.
Homayun Mafi; Mehdi Fallah
Volume 3, Issue 9 , December 2015, , Pages 149-170
Abstract
One of the most widely used independent bank obligations in international trade law is a demand bank guarantee. This is always exposed to the risk of unfair demand, because it is payable on demand. It means that the beneficiary calls and receives guaranteed fund despite of full performance of the underlying ...
Read More
One of the most widely used independent bank obligations in international trade law is a demand bank guarantee. This is always exposed to the risk of unfair demand, because it is payable on demand. It means that the beneficiary calls and receives guaranteed fund despite of full performance of the underlying contract by principal. In fact, documentary characteristics and the principle of independence provide an opportunity for the beneficiary to affect the exceptional and secondary function of bank guarantee as a result of an unfair demand. The question posed is how unfair demand can be prevented. By examining rules and regulation governing international trade and the draft bill on commercial law approved in 1391, it would seem that among possible solutions, such as the requirement of presenting a court judgment or an arbitral tribunal award and a statement by the beneficiary or principal indicating points in which the applicant is in breach of its obligations, the assumption of nonperformance of the contract, in the event of demand by the beneficiary, is the most appropriate solution.
