Mohammad Mansouri; Mohamad Mahdi Asharif; Sayyed Mohammad Sadegh Tabatabaie
Abstract
Due to the wide scope of compromise contract, in addition to most nominate contracts, innominate contracts can be concluded with title of compromise contract. But is any agreement outside the nominate contracts necessarily considered to be compromise contract and does it not need to be intended as a ...
Read More
Due to the wide scope of compromise contract, in addition to most nominate contracts, innominate contracts can be concluded with title of compromise contract. But is any agreement outside the nominate contracts necessarily considered to be compromise contract and does it not need to be intended as a compromise contract or its content and its nature to conclude it? Does compromise have its own particular content that must be intended like the other nominate contract, or is it characterized by not having a framework? Some jurists believe that the compromise contract has a concept equivalent to article 10 of civil law and notwithstanding the compromise contract which covers all innominate contracts, article 10 is not required. In addition to opposing the viewpoint of synonymy of compromise contract and innominate contracts with religious jurisprudence and civil law who regard compromise as having a specific content. For the following reasons this view cannot be accepted and compromise contract and innominate contracts must be considered two different concepts. Firstly: A type of agreement can be considered as compromise contract in which outcome of contract includes agreement, not every agreement out of nominate contract. Secondly: Compromise contract can be substitute of the nominate contracts, while innominate contracts cannot. Thirdly: Compromise contract is necessarily irrevocable contract and innominate contracts may be revocable contract. Fourthly: In compromise based on negligence, detailed knowledge is not required, but in innominate contracts, essential conditions, including detailed knowledge, are required. The only instance in which an innominate contract can be considered as compromise is one that denotes resolving or preventing conflict
hossein adib; rasul mazaheri kuhanestani; Mohmmadmahdi Alsharif; mahmod jalali
Abstract
Social life requirements prompt legislators to impose limitations on and even forevlose private ownership under certain circumstances, based on the public power of State institutions and for public interest; such discretion is however not absolute and State institutions are authorized to expropriate ...
Read More
Social life requirements prompt legislators to impose limitations on and even forevlose private ownership under certain circumstances, based on the public power of State institutions and for public interest; such discretion is however not absolute and State institutions are authorized to expropriate a land that the payment of its price is made and legal formalities are observed. Under Iranian legal system, the initiation of compulsary purchase measures depends on an approved plan, required financing, the implementing the plan and public promulgation of the plan however, unlike English law, citizens are not involved in the process of approving the plans and their content and no objection mechanism to plans has been predicted before the plans are approved and finalized.Under British law, compensation is not limited to the properties lying within an urban planning scheme, but it may be obligatory in case no land has been expropriated, however, the properties be harmed due to the provision of public service or subsequent use of public installations.This article, with its analytical-descriptive methodology, seeks to explain ?? aspects of Iranian and British legal systems as regards the expropriation of lands and properties and compensation methods resulting from the limitation of private ownership.
