Private Law
Mohammad Ali Hosseini; Ali Rezaee; Sirous Heidari; Hojjat Mobayen
Abstract
Abstract: Articles 454 and 455 of the Civil Code are ambiguous in terms of the examples of the "right of rescission", the examples of "the implied condition of prohibition of the customer in the assignment" and the meaning of the word "void"; however, the supreme court decision as a unified judicial ...
Read More
Abstract: Articles 454 and 455 of the Civil Code are ambiguous in terms of the examples of the "right of rescission", the examples of "the implied condition of prohibition of the customer in the assignment" and the meaning of the word "void"; however, the supreme court decision as a unified judicial precedent No. 810 dated 24/06/2021is also vague and outside the scope of the lawsuits. A court has described the option of violation of the payment of installments and the delivery of the goods upon rescission as an implicit prohibition of the customer's assignment, and has ruled on the invalidity of the possessions and eviction. But in similar lawsuits, another court, from the terms of the same contract, did not describe such a concept, and with a different interpretation of the law, ruled against the seller. The supreme court emphasized the intent of the contracting parties in the case of the right to rescind the contract and return of goods sold, by commenting on an implicit matter, and did not comment on the legal status of the possession of the seller, and believes that the owner's right of priority does not invalidate the condition and the right of rescission against the return of the goods. While, according to the opinion of the majority of late and contemporary jurisprudents, deduced from Articles 454 and 455 of the Civil Code, the customer's right of assignment in the contractual right of rescission is dependent null. Thus, since the implicit matter of the return of goods sold and the request for eviction is based on the request for the cancellation of the assignment, the decision of the court is logically voidable.
Parviz Ameri; Habib Talebahmadi; Ali Rezaee; Erfan Khosravani
Abstract
Passenger transportation by sea is more than other modes by considering of safety and cost. Due to this large volume, the codification of international rules and conventions were required. In this regard, the first convention was drafted in 1961 under the Brussels Rules. This convention was not welcomed ...
Read More
Passenger transportation by sea is more than other modes by considering of safety and cost. Due to this large volume, the codification of international rules and conventions were required. In this regard, the first convention was drafted in 1961 under the Brussels Rules. This convention was not welcomed by the states and therefore the 1974 Athens Convention was envisaged. In order to increase the carrier's liability and to provide more protection to the passenger, this convention completely changed the basis and extent of liability contained in the Brussels Convention. However, the evolution of regulations of air transportation has led governments to change the rules governing to passenger transportation by sea. After several unsuccessful attempts, the 2002 London Amendment Protocol was finally incorporated into the Athens Convention. This protocol intensified the carrier's liability. This article examines the changes made to the Athens Convention and the London Amendment Protocol and reasons of these changes. Finally, it will be seen that the basis of liability has been changed to absolute and the reason of these changes is unification with the rules governing to air transportation of passenger. According to these developments, the changing of the internal regulations governing maritime passenger transport is necessary.
Ali Rezaee; Mazkour Salehi
Abstract
Anti-suit injunction is an order issued by a court or arbitral tribunal that prevents an opposing party to lodge or pursue a dispute before a national court in breach of that agreement. Considering the importance of this injunction in support of the arbitration, the status of injunction issued by arbitral ...
Read More
Anti-suit injunction is an order issued by a court or arbitral tribunal that prevents an opposing party to lodge or pursue a dispute before a national court in breach of that agreement. Considering the importance of this injunction in support of the arbitration, the status of injunction issued by arbitral tribunals in international arbitration shall be reviewed. However, since the jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject to the agreement between the parties, there are serious challenges regarding the authority and grounds for issuing this order by arbitral tribunals. The results of the research indicates that, contrary to the anti-suit injunctions issued by national courts, the injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are becoming an acceptable procedure. These injunctions are based on arbitration agreements, international and national laws and regulations regarding arbitration. Since the origin of the Anti-Suit Injunction is common law legal system, Iranian legal system and its precedent are alien to such injunction. In addition, the function of Anti-Suit Injunction in Iranian law in the form of provisional measure cannot be justified. Anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals have many advantages in the arbitration process such as flexibility, confidentiality, impartiality and the speed of arbitral proceedings.
Ali Rezaee
Abstract
In the event of disputes between members of the World Trade Organization, the claimant member, based on Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), should request Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to make the respondent comply with rules and regulation. If the DSB decided ...
Read More
In the event of disputes between members of the World Trade Organization, the claimant member, based on Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), should request Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to make the respondent comply with rules and regulation. If the DSB decided that the breach of the rules has occurred, the breaching party must implement the DSB’s recommendations and decisions by promptly bringing its measures into conformity with the covered agreements. If prompt compliance is impracticable, it shall do so within a ‘reasonable period of time’. The DSU does not adopt criteria for determining the reasonable period and indeed, the ambiguous language of the DSU has led to confusion and conflicting decisions. Therefore, this article aims to examine how to determine this period by presenting a criterion that could help arbitrators decide. Due to numerous shortcomings in current rules and regulation, this article, first, illustrates problems raised and then consider proposals for the amendment.
