Private Law
Fereidoon Nahreini
Abstract
Undoing each obligation, whether it is legal or contractual, is harmful, and the obligator is bound to compensate the loss by way of payment for damage. Delay in payment of monetary obligations is not out of this rule. The main question is, what date is the beginning of the calculation of late payment ...
Read More
Undoing each obligation, whether it is legal or contractual, is harmful, and the obligator is bound to compensate the loss by way of payment for damage. Delay in payment of monetary obligations is not out of this rule. The main question is, what date is the beginning of the calculation of late payment damages subject to Article 522 of the Civil Procedure Code? Date of main debt demand or date of the due date or date of bringing an action? Is there a way to compensate for damages or is it used to compensate for the decrease in the value of the banknote in monetary obligations? The result of this research is that the debt demand date for a monetary debt that has a due date, cannot be a criterion for starting the calculation of late payment damage, but the mentioned date (demand) is only for measuring the debtor’s financial ability. Because the debt demand time is used where the date of fulfillment of the obligation is not known or the object of obligation is one of the obligations on demand. Also, this article is not for paying damages, but only is a method to obtain compensation for the decrease in the value of the banknote in monetary debts.
Behnam Noorzadeh; Fereidoon Nahreini; Mohsen Izanloo; Hasan Badini; Mohammad Khabiri
Abstract
"Third Party Ownership" is one of the restraint of Trade Law in Sport, whereby a third party acquires all or part of the player's economic rights for financing the player or injecting cash into the club. Contrary to the common perception in the field, this mechanism does not grant the decision-making ...
Read More
"Third Party Ownership" is one of the restraint of Trade Law in Sport, whereby a third party acquires all or part of the player's economic rights for financing the player or injecting cash into the club. Contrary to the common perception in the field, this mechanism does not grant the decision-making power of the contract to a third party, and therefore, this will not lead to a type of slavery or curtail a player’s freedom. As the result, it will not result in the third party’s interference in implementation of the contract which is in breach of Article 960 of the Civil Code and Article 18 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In practice, various countries adopted different approached to the validity of this mechanism. The present study shows that by relying on economic efficiency and justice this mechanism merely entitles a third party to the player’s incomes in his future transfers without any unfair wealth transfer to third parties. FIFA regulations do not prohibit any investment by a third party, but they have banned him from influencing over club’s decisions. The mechanism could be introduced as a business model for football.
