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.
Pejman Mohammadi; Amir Moradpourshad; Hojjat mobayen
Abstract
Criminal Procedure Code adopted in 2014 has affected the scope of moral damages and loss of profit from some perspectives. On the one hand, the extent of civil liability for any moral damages to injured party has increased. According to article 14 of the Code, the harm in both forms of loss of reputation ...
Read More
Criminal Procedure Code adopted in 2014 has affected the scope of moral damages and loss of profit from some perspectives. On the one hand, the extent of civil liability for any moral damages to injured party has increased. According to article 14 of the Code, the harm in both forms of loss of reputation and mental distress leads to the civil liability of injurer. On the other hand, the scope of recoverable moral damages and loss of profits, that is, the scope of civil liability of the persons has been sharply reduced. In cases where blood money is paid and the Islamic punishment is imposed, these two types of damage cannot be compensated. In this regard, the legislator has stopped up even further by stating that this type of damage is compensable when the loss of profit compensation can be equal to the destruction. Finally, based on article 14 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, the scope of remedy for compensating moral damages has expanded. In other words, moral damages can be compensated through pecuniary and non-pecuniary way.
