Ali Ghesmati Tabrizi
Abstract
Damages caused by natural disasters, which were formerly considered the result of the force majeure and were irreparable, are now compensable with the help of special legal systems. In addition to compensating the victims, these systems seek to prevent and reduce the effects of natural disasters in order ...
Read More
Damages caused by natural disasters, which were formerly considered the result of the force majeure and were irreparable, are now compensable with the help of special legal systems. In addition to compensating the victims, these systems seek to prevent and reduce the effects of natural disasters in order to better manage the unpleasant effects of these Calamities. The Law on the «Establishment of the Public Insurance Fund of Natural Disasters» is an attempt to respond to public demand for security by the combination of compulsory insurance and governmental support to compensate for natural disasters. Nevertheless, it seems because of the long approval process and disregarding of the legal principles and practical experience of other countries, the legislature has failed to achieve its goals. The disordered basis, inadequate compensation, incomplete coverage, inattention to necessary financial resources, and the neglecting of preventive duties, in addition to not satisfying the victims, do not reduce governmental charges either. In this article, in addition to critical reviews of the Public Insurance an alternative solution to maintaining the insurance framework has been proposed to maintain the supervisory and supportive role of the government and effectively compensate for the adverse effects of natural disasters with the help of national solidarity.
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.
Rouhollah Rezaei; Ebrahim Abdipour Fard; Esmail Nematollahi
Abstract
Breach of contract may occur by the fault of party in breach. There is a variety of degrees in contractual fault and the highest degree of fault is intentional one. The breach of contract is considered to be intentional when the party in breach calculates the financial costs and benefits of the breach ...
Read More
Breach of contract may occur by the fault of party in breach. There is a variety of degrees in contractual fault and the highest degree of fault is intentional one. The breach of contract is considered to be intentional when the party in breach calculates the financial costs and benefits of the breach and then decides not to perform his/her contractual obligations. The notion of intentional breach and its consequences are recognized in common law and civil law and also in some European instruments such as PECL and DCFR. The intentionality of breach is considered to be relevant in above jurisdictions and instruments. For example, in the case of intentional breach, common law courts allowed the specific performance. They sometimes refused to mitigate the amount of penalty clauses and to recognize the exemption clauses in favor of the breaching party. Also, in civil law jurisdictions the intentional breach works as an allowance for unforeseeable damages. The hypothesis of this contribution is that in the case of intentional breach, courts must take a stricter approach than the usual breach and they should seek to improve the position of the creditor in terms of accessing to contractual remedies.
