JOURNAL OF PRIVATE LAW
Year:2013 | Volume:1 | Issue:1|Papers Count:7

Management in the joint stock public companies forms the economic cornerstone of the countries in the world, and plays a vital role in the promotion and the increase of production, job creation and employment, and market development. The science and the art of management which can provide opportunities for the implementation of short and long term planning which are approved by the general assemblies, can cause increase in the production, boost industrial and service units such as transportations on land, sea, and air, as well as decrease in unemployment, increase in exportation, and finally lead to economic prosperity. In this regard, selection of managers by the regular general assembly and the delegation of widespread powers to them, and their observing the sincerity and trustfulness have been considered by legal authorities. The legislator has predicted sever responsibilities for the managers who are not able to use their possibilities to direct and manage the affairs in the best possible way. In case of infringements, they have to compensate for the losses they have imposed on the company and on shareholders. In this article an attempt is made to discuss about the powers of managers according to the law of Iran, France, and the U.S., and compare their civil and criminal responsibilities. At the end, some suggestions will be made on the way of compensation for the present legal defects.

Administrative Civil Procedure in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s system is established on the basis of law, and the government which is subject to legal rules, and endows the right to people to refer to the Administrative Justice Court, or to present their cases to the government justice sources whose absolute and finalized decisions can be investigated in the Administrative Justice Court, and the clients complaints will be investigated and their rights will be concerned. To get familiar with the Administrative Civil Procedures which are independent from those of the legal and Supreme Financial Audit Courts, and also to distinguish them from other Administrative Civil Systems, a meticulous consideration to its minute descriptions and its detailed construction seems critical.

One of the discussable problem in the section of trade documents of trade rights, among authorities is the complementarities of rights or forcefulness of the partnership rules for the signers of the trade documents. In this paper the writers will answer the following questions while dealing with the mentioned issue: 1. Can the person who issues the document or endorses a trade document include his or her lack of responsibility as a condition for issuing or transferring the trade document.2. If the above condition is preserved, is the condition correct or cancelled, and if it is not correct, can this condition be applied to the trade document, as well.3. What are the effects of the mentioned condition proposed by the endorser of the trade document; draft, promissory note, and cheque?Since issuing and transferring a trade document is a contract or a bilateral legal action and such a condition is a while the terms contract, their truthfulness will be surveyed by reference to general rules of the contracts.The trade law of our country, Iran, will be compared with the regulations imposed by some other countries and by international conventions, in this regard. This article will come to the conclusion by accumulating the the proposed ideas regarding who has proposed the condition and in what type of document by reference to the authorities’ different works.

Issuing the appointment provision is bound to the provision of the potential damage. This law, however, has some exceptions. According to the article no.108 of the law of public and Islamic Revolution Courts in civil affairs (enacted 2000) the plaintiff requiring the provision is exempted from depositing in the following three conditions: a) when the action is officially documented, b) the supplied is exposed to worth or imprisonment, and c) in cases like protested trade document for which the court is supposed to accept the request for provision. In the mentioned cases, there is no need for depositing for the provision of possible damages, due to the originality of the official and business documents and because of the high possibility that the deed is beneficial to the plaintiff in the mentioned actions. In official actions which are bindingly or not bindingly documented according to the official notary, those which are documented according to the court terms, in reforming reports or documents constructed by the notary or consulate officials, and when foreign official deeds documented as official or regular documents, the plaintiff is exempted from depositing for the supply of possible damages. In the second case the plaintiff has to prove being exposed to law imprisonment, although its proof might contradict the emergency of ssuance of provision. In the terminal case if the action for inquiring the money is documented to a protested draft or a promissory note, or a cheque leading to the issuance of the certificate for not paying it in the determined period, or beyond the period, the plaintiff is exempted from depositing for the possible damages.

The present article deals with the analysis of the theoretical bases of the option of lesion. In this regard it will provide, at first, the definition of key terms, and then will deal with the discussion on the theoretical bases of the "defect intention" and "no injury rule" and their implied terms. The interpretation section of "no injury" will be more extensively dealt with, because reference to jurisprudence of some law experts to justify the basis of the "Option of Lesion" necessitates this prolongation. This will illuminate the different aspects of the degree of justification by the Civil Law in the "Option of Lesion" because with the rule of "No Injury" the liability arising from the "Option of Lesion" becomes compulsory and by the implied term as the basis of the "Option of Lesion", this liability gets contractual.

Binding of citizenship law has caused some people to believe that there is no room for adherence to judicial and administrative sources and benefitting from a fair trial. This interpretation is unjust and contrary to the rights of people over their citizenship and nationality, and besides that, enjoying a just and right trial, according to Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the conventions which are in one way or another specialized to citizenship. Concerning this necessity and Regarding Iran’s Law System, and of course its judicial procedure which is shaped along with the new developments, this article will deal with the right of nationality and citizenship and the principle of fair trial.

Time sharing is type of time bond sharing which is limited to a certain period of time, like two weeks in a year. This contract makes possibility for people to allocate to themselves a huge amount of money investment in a determined period of time, with spending a minimum amount of expenses. Time sharing is one of the principle factors of tourism and residence during the vacation time. The idea of time bound sharing, is welcomed increasingly, in the world, today. The purpose of this research is to explore the concept of time bound sharing and to survey on its legality. To this end, the ideas expressed by opponents and proponents and the religious perspectives toward this issue will be investigated. Concerning the research process, the time sharing itself is complete, legally and religiously, and does not need any new legal institution and amendment. The reason for this statement is that with reference to the article 10 of the Civil Law and the principle of the freedom of contracts, this contract is considered legal and logical. The only problem which might arise in this regard is related to the legislation and the domain of the responsibility of each of the sharers and legal execution support for the sake of its protection.