THE JUDICIARY’S LAW JOURNAL
Year:2013 | Volume:77 | Issue:81|Papers Count:10

In countries like Iran, religion and religious jurisprudence constitute a main source for legislation as well as there are laws and regulations meant to provide legal protection for religious beliefs and sanctities. The same situation can be traced during the era of Church authority in some other countries including the UK. However many countries such support do not provide such criminalization arguing such legislation being inconsistent with freedom of expression and human rights by contrast, according to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code, the criminalization of blasphemy including any insulation to the Prophet (and also Holy Imams) and other religious sanctities of Islam is also expanded to other holy Prophets while the English legal system there are some sporadic criminal protect merely for the Christian sanctities. But it is ambiguous what is meant by the term “religious sanctities” and whether any kind of profanity is subject to such criminal sanctions, and also what is the sentence for such crimes. These questions are the points which are getting analyzed in the present paper – focusing on the both Iranian and English regulations and judicial procedures through survey in religious sources and Islamic opinions.

Contract of sale is the most important possessory contract which refers to the property transfer of an object of sale from seller to buyer. Third party claim regarding the ownership of an object of sale will undermine the effectiveness of the aforementioned rights. Regulations governing the Iranian law concerning meddle deals and defects warrantor implies that such claim will result in total cancellation of the contract of sale and the status will return to what was previously (i.e prior to conclusion of the agreement). Accordingly, it is essential to secure entire rights of the claim asserted by third party (owner), refund the original property (object of sale) to the party that possess it, and compensate for all the losses. The original buyer, however, can only request the price previously paid, expenses of judicial proceedings and the like, albeit with much less buying power and in case of ignorance that object of sale belonged to someone else. In fact, the current regulations are based on a supportive approach to the benefit of “owner”, so that rights of the original buyer are considered submissive to quality of the rights demanded by the owner; because nullification of the agreement between the dealers will hamper contractual claims of the seller against the buyer. In other words, the buyer can merely pursue the price previously paid and regain the former status. Therefore, the condition of “nullité partielle” of contract in such cases is similarly recognized in the Egyptian law that actually originates from the French version of law, based on which the contractual relationship between buyer and seller is distinguished from their relationship with the owner and its validity remains despite the nullity regarding the owner. Partial nullity (nullité partielle) can promote the supportive approach in benefit of the original bona fide buyer and become more compatible with the principles of justice and fairness.

Survey of meeting option in electronic contracts is one of The topics that rarely have been considered. In this paper, after examining the meeting option concept and its elements, we plan to survey this question whether the meeting option - in meaning of traditional sale - applies in electronic contracts? If the answer to this question is positive, undoubtedly there is meeting option for the transacting parties. This hypothesis is parallel with the discussion of the rights of consumers.

The Iranian civil code has limited the effects of unknown condition to nullification of such condition provided that it results in ignorance with respect to consideration. The code conveys no explicit provision concerning the effect of such condition not resulting in the ignorance. Unknown condition refers to a condition on which there is not complete and comprehensive knowledge.This article legally analyses this condition, as contained in lossfull and dilatory contracts in Imamich jurisprudence and legal norms separately. According to imamich jurisprudence, intertieon of an unknown condition, as defined above, is permissible for dilatory contract, not derogating the permissibility of such contract. This approach has been followed by the Iranian Civil code. But for lossfull contract, different views have been offered by fogfaha. It seems that the Iranian legislator has followed those believing that an unknown condition stipulated in lossfull contracts, always result in ignorance to the considerations and nullify the contract. It should be noted that the consideration itself is void.

Birth of paradigm and model of Security-oriented policy in the realm of liberal criminal law after September 11, 2001, radicalism and populism about the necessity of security- oriented policies have resulted in rise of restrictions against fair- trial guarantees in some cases of delinquency and criminals. This Security- oriented approach of “non-totalitarian states” to the crime the penetration of the minds and eyes of many criminal policy makers claiming democracy has changed their dominant approaches. This shift, certainly, does not intend the disenfranchisement of legitimate rights and freedoms of citizens. It happens sometimes referring to the justification of maintaining the public order and territorial and Trans territorial security of community, and in the other words, by resorting to sort of paternal pragmatism; and sometimes, beneath the mask of such arguments In the light of the increasing rise in crime rates and booming organization of crimes both at the national and international levels as well as the birth of new forms of criminality all over the world the significance if security at both domestic and international levels has increased which has caused changes in mind of the drafters of international instruments such as the Vienna, Merida , Palermo Convention. The present article examines Considerations on the problem of Security- oriented approach and its spread over one of the new forms of criminal action i.e. money laundering- particularly in the organized form - studying its consequent restrictions over the fair trial guarantees such as reverse burden of proof in the light of security – oriented Criminal policy.

This article, first, provides that, in Iran’s legal system, the principle is that all damages are compensated and any loss is restored to its previous situation. The article, then, argues that the courts in Iran do not consider punitive damages in their judgments but alternative remedies such as blood money and liquidated damages are provided in civil and criminal codes. However, none of these solutions can replace the punitive damages.Legislature first recognizes punitive damages in the amendment of the Act of the Jurisdiction of the Iranian Courts in Civil Cases against Foreign States (1379), and ultimately confirms it in the Act of the Jurisdiction of the Iranian Courts in Civil Cases against Foreign States (1390), In response to judgments in countries where punitive damages were decided against Iran.

Enforcement of judgments of administrative tribunal, as one institution for guarantee of the rule of law, is very important. So we can’t consider “administrative authorities abstention from enforcement of judgments of administrative tribunal (Divan Edallate Edari) branches” as a crime, but we should treat it as administrative offence that an administrative authorities commits against Divan -as the highest reliable administrative testimony unit- and the inquisition is only in its original jurisdiction. The definition of this kind of abstention is “Any kind of abstention, as action or inaction, against enforcement of judgments of Divan branches, including judgment or resolution, that deliberately happens after taking administrative measures, when there is no legal or practical barriers against judgment debtor, this offence usually committed by the highest authority and is restricted by the result”, As result we consider the sanction of this offence, as one “Administrative alert” that “legal hierarchical order” principle will determine its extention.

“Mehr Housing contract” is one of the newly founded institutions that entered into force by approving “D” clause of 1386 (H.A) budget law. Regarding the principle that budget law is an annual subject, there are some doubts about the credibility and survival of this foundation. In addition, the legal nature of the “Mehr Housing contract” is unclear and some believe that equal to long term rentals. Even the term of “99-year lease” has been used alongside the title of “Mehr Housing” in the executive regulations of “D clause” of the said law. however despite similarities of this housing with contracts such as leases, profit right ,etc. there are also some fundamental differences so these kinds of contract are particular in nature.