Private Law Research

Abstract None-interchangeability of lawsuit elements is known to have been
accepted as a principle in Iran’s procedural law. However, in practice the
principle seems unattended in legal terminology and discussions pertaining
to procedural law, hence leaving it not satisfactorily entertained. This article
is aimed at defining the elements of lawsuits and their interchangeability
over the course of a proceeding, subject to late part of Article 98 of Iran’s
Procedural Law; a subject hardly invoked in domestic legal doctrine. Besides
Article 98, by making reference to various Articles of Iran’s procedural law,
this essay shall strive to define Lawsuits Elements and their Interchangeability approach.

Abstract The rule of “Mitigation of Damages” is among the pivotal principles
prevailing the reparation process, based on which the injured party bears an
obligation to take any reasonable course of action to minimize damages
being incurred and to avoid their expansions ; otherwise, he may not be
found entitled to a full compensation. Even though, the principle is only
moderately addressed, besides Islamic jurisprudence by some local laws and
regulations, no independent research has yet been conducted on the subject.
The article shall note that such duty of the injured party is not strictly
unlimited , meaning that for it to arise, certain conditions must genuinely
exist .Further ,there may be objective obstacles which may negate the injured
party’s obligation to mitigate damages being incurred. In a comparative
approach and by making reference to various International instruments
including in particular the laws of England as the main origin of the
mitigation rule, this article shall discuss the conditions and impediments in
line with effectuation of the said principle.

Abstract According to Holy Quran sovereignty is for God (Verse 40, Yousef
Surah) and in principle no human enjoys dominance over the other.
Nonetheless, according to Verse 34-Alnesa Surah of Quran and similarly
Article 1105 of Iran’s Civil Law, directorship is for the husband in domestic
relations. However, this does not purport to unconditional predominance of
husband over his wife and according to many Islamic jurists, the implication
of the Quran reading “Husband shall superintend the wife” may not be
translated as men's despotism, cruel it your injustice. Instead, the purpose is
prescription of a unified regulated leadership with respect to [household]
responsibilities and subject to consultation [with wife]» (Shirazi, Makaremand others, 2006, vol. 4, 471). Furthermore, under moral principles and as
per the concrete rules of Islamic jurisprudence namely the rule of
“Prohibition of Harm” stipulated in principle 40 of Iran’s constitution, “No
individual may excersise his/her rights as a mean of damaging others”, all of
which imply that directorship and superintendence of a husband accounts
primarily and in essence as a “duty” and not merely a sole priviledge. It is
only then we may consider such privilege for the husband to enjoy
authorities required to carry out duties arising out of his position.
Directorship of husband does not account for devaluation of wive’s human
dignity or husband's primacy or superiority over his wife. For taking up such
position husband shall need to have competence based on which he finds a
restricted capacity to perform meaning that his authorities are bound to
limits

Abstract Under Iran’s legal system incompetents are protected through various
channels namely in part by nullyfiying or ruling ineffective the legal actions
taken by the same. Further, to gurantee and safeguard their interests,
particular agents are to be delegated to administer on their behalf their legal
affairs. Thus, Iran’s law has provided for certain establishments as to serve
the purpose including custodianship, administration [of will] and
guardianship. Save the above, to guarantee the interest of incompetents are
further protected, the law has designated the Prosecuting Attorney with the
duty to oversee the actions taken by the above three delegates, as the case
may be, taking necessary measures where required. The founding of nonejudicial protective service organizations such as State Welfare Organization
[Sazman Behzisti], Protective Service Committee [Komite Emdad] and
Martyre Foundation [Bonyad Shahid] has led to most of the protective duties
originally entrusted with the Prosecuting Attorney be practically carried out
by the said organizations, thereby giving rise to the need addressed by this
article to study and discuss the interference of such duties and the conflict
between their functionality

Abstract Akin to other inventions, new methods need to be devised allowing for
registration of pharmaceutical dosage regimens in much the same way as
other patents. In doing so, there are two main challenges ahead. First,
whether these dosage regimens, excluded expressly from the list of
patentable products in Europe, may in fact be considered as a novel therapy
method? And second, given that ingredients and composition of such patents
are no longer an innovative secret, whether sole variation in their usage
dosage may possibly fall within the scope of novel inventions?
The answer to the above controversial questions have been the notion of
challenge addressed by several European patent forums. This article will
review the approaches adopted by European Patent Administration in
dealing with recent trends introduced on the topic of new customized dosage
regimens

Abstract To protect contracts, eliminate International trade barriers and regulate
new forms of trade relations, states have long strived to minimize differences
in their legal systems as to provide more desirable legal protection for
international economic activities. Despite the fact that these unified codes
are transnational and are thus considered non-binding in nature, contracting
parties may agree to give them a binding force if so desired. Transnational
codes mainly come in to force after national constitutional ratification
requirements including those of Iran are satisfied otherwise their
enforceability may only be assumed to the extent where they have no
contradiction with internal laws (subject to Articles 10,975 and 986 of the
Iran’s Civil Code). Optional set of rules may bear different legal results and
provide a range of options for states to choose from. Governmental and nongovernmental organizations are both active players in formulation of unified
codes in form of international conventions or alternatively model principles
and legal guides which have helped expediting their ratification process. In
formulating the same, with inspiration from International trade customs,
either they have merged rules from various legal regimes or have taken
initiatives to work out totally new model codes. This article will review joint
interests of states in minimizing obstacles in ratification and execution of
such set of rule

Abstract Where required elements of liability are established, the agent for the
injurious action shall be held liable. Nonetheless, the injurious agent may not
always be the wrongdoer; in other words there may be other causes which
may contribute in infliction of damages. Proof of an external force may sever
the chain of causation and thereby free the defendant from attribution of any
fault. The foremost example of external force is the “Force Majeure”,
prescribed either expressly or otherwise in some Laws of Iran. Force
Majeure may contribute in damages in two ways: It is either the sole cause
of the damage or one among several others.
Either way, its existence shall considerably affect the liability regime.
The grounds on which Force Majeure is based in Islamic jurisprudence are
principles such as “Prohibition of damages” [La Zarar], “Prohibition of
hardship”[Osr va Haraj] and “Limited-liability of trustees”[Estiman]