This article discusses the loss of profit in Iranian law and the 1980 international sale of Goods Convention. After presenting the definition and kinds of loss of profit, the article first discusses this issue in Iranian law and by referring to general rules and 'principles like la dharar, waste (etlaf) and causation (tasbib) and wisdom tradition states that this kind of loss is recoverable. Then it refers to the different codes of Iran. Finally the article discusses the matter in convention and states some judicial decisions passed by reference to the convention and refers to some problems that aren't expressed in it and suggests some solution introduced by interpreters.

Our country’s law concerning the scope of civil liability arising from non-performance of obligations, has a history associated with ups and downs, so that it can be divided into three phases: the enactment of Civil Code in 1307 of solar calendar, adoption of Civil Procedure in 1318 and Civil Liability Law in 1339 and the Law of Procedure of General and Revolutionary Courts in Civil Matters) in 1379.Understanding legal developments in relation to our subject matter is not possible without examining its background in foreign legal systems, on one hand, and studying Fiqhi foundations and common doctrine among Muslim jurists, on the other.The paper is an attempt to study the scope of civil liability arising from non-performance first in foreign legal systems and then from a jurisprudential viewpoint and finally, its developments in our country’s law, especially in recent years.The paper argues that subjecting the demand of contractual reparation to express or implicit will of the parties (in Article 221 of Civil Code) by the civil legislator in 1307 is not pointless but rather was to adapt European law to Islamic Shi’a jurisprudence and was therefore necessary.Also the exclusion of non-profit loss from the scope of civil liability arising from non-performance, its limitation to deliberate destruction and causing and the intervention of the element of "fault" in contractual liability considered in the law of procedure of General and Revolutionary Courts (in civil matters) of 1379 are contrary to today’s customary principles. The mechanism envisaged in the Civil Code of 1307 which is the sole way of adopting a large scope for that liability is consistent with generally accepted doctrine in jurisprudence and also with principle 4 of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Constitution.

One of the jurisprudential rules is impermissibility of assistance to commitment of sin and transgression. In the first place the documents on which this rule is based in the Quran and tradition are discussed and then the arguments based on reason and consensus is put forth. Also the issue is discussed from jurisprudential and legal points of view and its history in the Iranian Legal Code is illustrated. Secondly the conditions for materialization of this assistance as well as the relationship and differences between causing, contributing to or assisting the commitment of an offense are discussed. Finally assistance to materialization of illegitimate deals is discussed from jurisprudential and legal points of view in the French law and is compared with that of Iran.

Certainly it is believed in the crimes which in their occurring human factors are interfered, especially in cases that their interference is accompanied with fault and negligence, by any means they are responsible for its occurring whether it will be direct.The writer while studies the different views on the liability of the direct or indirect factor in the crimes cause blood-money, emphasizes this point that being more stronger in the conjunction of direct and indirect factor influences the liability more; he believed that jurists 's well-known point of view in the conjunction of indirect factors based on this point that if the indirect factor whose influence is before the influence of the other one in the occurring of the crime, so the first indirect factor will be liable, is criticized because if it is considered that the second indirect factor is not liable, it is in contradiction with the condition expressed in the definition of the indirect factor that "if it were not, the crime would not occur."

What is the basis of obligation due to gathering of the overseer and cause in occurrence of damage? In other words, in case of the overseer and cause gathering which one of them is responsible in damage occurrence? The main purpose of this study is to provide an answer to the above question. According to the investigation conducted in this study which was done according to library type method and with the use of lawyers and jurisprudents’ views, it becomes clear that most jurisprudents accept it was a general principle that the overseer and cause gathering, if the cause is not stronger, the overseer is responsible; however, with respect to the fact that the basis of responsibility in wastage and damage is by traditional virtue of wastage to the individual’s dead, so in case of the overseer and cause gathering in occurrence of damage also the real basis of responsibility is on the traditional strength of wastage, and accordingly, in case the wastage is traditionally referred to overseer, the overseer is the sole responsible. In case the wastage is referred to the cause, the cause will be responsible and where the wastage is referred to both, then both of them will be responsible.