Private Law Research

Abstract In European law and Common Law, on the basis of consumer protection, unfair
contractual terms are subject to specific regulation. In domestic law, lack of
such regulation can clearly be observed. According to general principles of
contract law, these terms seem to be valid. As far as article “46” of Electronic
Commerce Act of I.R.Iran is concerned, unfair terms, which are harmful to
consumers, are not effective. Nevertheless, due to the specific and protective
basis of E-consumers, this provision does not apply to other cases, and
therefore, it is not possible to refer to fairness under any rubric due to the lack
of enforceability. In addition, although the principle of freedom of contract, the
theory of the ‘will’ parties and the necessity of contract indicate the validity of
these terms, judges, in litigation, could deal with dispute resolution based on
fairness. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 93/13/EEC is
European Union Directive (then called European Economic Community
Directive) which governs the use of surprising or onerous terms used in order to
deal with consumers

Abstract “Causation” is of particular significance in tort law of Iran and England,
particularly in the field of Negligence Law. Existing differences in Iranian legal
system, as a civil law country, with English law, as a common law country,
cause great difficulties in seeking a common perspective in order to examine the
concept of causation. Having said that, this is not an impossible task. In order to
conduct a comparative study of causation under the legal systems of Iran and
England, two principal subjects of “Hidden Tortfeasor” and “Visible
Tortfeasor” are distinguished after scrutinizing “The State of Causation”. On
the basis of the current criteria, an aspect of “Liable Tortfeasor” is examined,
which determines a responsible one in the incident under “Tortfeasor” survey. A
certain connection is recognized between the damage and factors contributing to
the occurrence of the incident, but it is impossible to identify the liable factor
then “Hidden Tortfeasor” comes to the surface. According to noticeable
similarities in Iranian and English law, the latter can present solutions for
Iranian law, and it can be used as a suitable model for Iranian legal system.
Judges can consider the above-mentioned criteria adopted in English law in
cases in which no solution can be found in Iranian law or existing solution is not
adaptable with conditions and nature of the dispute.

Abstract In the late 1980s, imposing stringent environmental regulations in industrialized
countries increased the costs of eliminating hazardous waste, and thus its transport
to the developing and Eastern European countries began. Following the
enhancement of the amount of hazardous waste and relevant disasters in these
countries, the export of such wastes was recognized as a serious business by the
international community. Hence, in 1989, Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Principle Disposal was
prepared by the United Nations Environmental Program and adopted by different
countries. Meanwhile, in1993, Iran became a member of the Convention
subsequently referring the disposal of special waste overseas to its regulation in
Article 14 of the Law on Waste Management (2005). In relation to the damages of
transporting hazardous waste and its compensation, the Convention has designed
an Additional Protocol; attached to the double standard of strict and fault-based
liabilities with limited financial strict liability. Basel Protocol has promoted the
Basel Convention regime to ensure minimum compensation through compulsory
insurance, supplemental financial compensation and time limits for claims.
However, unlike other international conventions on hazardous waste, it has
assumed strict liability not to be undertaken by the carrier, but by the people via the
temporal distribution of responsibilities.

Abstract  
  In Iranian law, the sale contract consists of two mutual acquisitions formed
together. These acquisitions are in the same level regarding their positions
(Article 338 of Iranian Civil Code).
However, in spite of being in the same level, transposition of two acquisitions
are possible, since dichotomy in time of credit affairs allows us to maintain
causing correlation of commitments and to separate them from each other at the
same time. Therefore, although traditional view of legal and jurisprudential
issues does not accept such a condition, following a new approach and focusing
on credit reasons, it is possible to accept transposition in the effect of contracts.
The issue examined in this research is that the parties may agree to "temporally"
submit the transfer of ownership based on their ‘will’, since the field of credit
affairs follows sides` determination aside from developmental affairs. Based on
the principle of determination prominence and article 10 of the Civil Code, such
agreements should be corrected based on sentences, and hence we should not
deal with law issues by ignoring ‘will’ of parties as a result of inappropriate and
philosophical interpretations.

Abstract Incidents may occur during the performance of the contract which prevent one
or both parties from performing his obligations, even though the parties do not
have any role in causing such incidents. Art 79 of the CISG deals with the
impossibility of the performance of the contract as a cause of exemption from
liability for damages arising from a breach of contract. In some cases, the
circumstances, which have been the basis of the contract balance at the time of
contract formation, change and subsequently the performance of the contract
becomes difficult. The CISG contains no specific provision dealing with
hardship (Ta'assor) and related exemptions. Therefore, a question arises as to
whether the CISG covers such cases. There are different doctrinal views and
jurisprudence which will be discussed in this article.

Abstract In the realm of commercial trade, it is a common practice that sellers and buyers
manifest their intentions to conclude the contract of sale through different
communications and correspondence. The parties may exchange forms and
general terms prepared invariably in advance for all contracts. There may be a
conflict between the buyer’s and the seller’s forms. Thus, when a dispute arises
between the parties, the main question is whether a contract has been
concluded, even though there are conflicting terms. If the answer is positive, a
further question is: What are the terms of this contract?
By considering circumstances and conduct of the parties, on the whole, after the
exchange of the forms, it can be said that there is a valid contract. A viable
solution is to disregard the conflicting terms, and instead, to consider provisions
of the law governing the contract. When CISG is the law applicable to the sale
contract, its provisions may well be used to fill the gaps after conflicting terms
are ruled out.