Mirghasem Jafarzadeh; Iman Hosseinpour Sharafshad
Abstract
In this research it is shown that attributing a contratio sensu to a description used by the legislator when providing legal rules is much debatable among Islamic Law Schoolars. The same debate seems to exist among Iranian legal writers. The detailed examination of this research does also show the fact ...
Read More
In this research it is shown that attributing a contratio sensu to a description used by the legislator when providing legal rules is much debatable among Islamic Law Schoolars. The same debate seems to exist among Iranian legal writers. The detailed examination of this research does also show the fact that when justifying a contratio sensu for description, some scholars in Sheih Jurisprudence are of the opinion that in order to prove such implied indication for description it should be an exclusive causal link between description used and the express contemplated Legal rule. In contrary to this view, it is suggested by the writers that it would suffice if it is proved that there is definite causal link between the description used and the legal rule provided by express language.Likewise, althohgh the result is chalangeable in the Principles of Sheih Jurisprudence, it can suggsseted by confidence that such Sensu can be attributed to the Iranian Civil Law Lawmakers in most of cases. This view can be justified by various aruments such as the usual intention of the authority using such language to provide legal rules, normal perception of the addressed persons, reasonable meaning of the texts used by the legislator, constant precedents of the reasonable persons, the reasonability of the legislator, the principle of the necessity of generality in providing the legal rules and the usual use of such language in providing legal rules.Based on this suggestion and in order to identify what kind of description could result into a contratio Sensu or not, the description used in law texts, shall be divided into an indicative which has a contratio Sensu or an explanatory which has not. It shall also be divided into a description which is used to describe the subject-matter and the one which describes the legal rule. In the first case it has not a contratio Sensu and in the second one has. Finally, it is also shown that "the description used in the law texts, has in principle a contratio Sensu, unless it is proved to be an explanatory, or subject matter-conditioning or has no causl linkage with the legal rule provide by exress language."
Mirghasem Jafarzadeh; masumeh akbarian.tabari
Abstract
A vertical agreement is an agreement between two or more economic entities, each of which operates at different levels of the commercial market. These agreements may contain non-price excluding terms that are contrary to competition law. One of the controversial issues in this regard is whether competition ...
Read More
A vertical agreement is an agreement between two or more economic entities, each of which operates at different levels of the commercial market. These agreements may contain non-price excluding terms that are contrary to competition law. One of the controversial issues in this regard is whether competition law will recognize non-price restraints on vertical agreements as detrimental to competition or not only does it not constitute a barrier to competition but also finds it useful in competition. The findings of the comparative studies show that non-price restraints on US and EU competition law are among the suspected restraints, however, due to the different approaches in competition law policies, the scope of inclusion in both legal systems is different. U.S jurisprudence has recognized it as independent restrictive arrangements and analyzes it under the rule of rationality. There are general and individual exemptions in EU law for the assessment of vertical restraints, which are declared legitimate if they meet the stated criteria. In Iranian law, the competitive approach to these restraints is ambiguous due to the lack of an explicit position, however, by relying on the general rules of competition law and the interpretation of Articles 44 and 45 of Law on Implementation of General Policies of Principle (44) of Constitution, we can find examples of restrictive procedures and agreements that can be adapted to these restraints in US and EU competition law.
