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."

There have been decrees on wealth and properties throughout history, a part of which describes how these properties should be transferred and the factors which prevent from this transfer. In Articles 861, 862, and 864, in addition to the way of transferring the property, in Articles 880 to 885 the elements and the factors that prohibit the transfer is numerated.Murder is one of the causes that Civic Law in Iran has considered a prohibited factor.Although scholars and jurisprudents do not agree on the prohibited factors on inheritance, murder is a cause that prohibits the transfer of the left properties to the murderer in most Islamic and non-Islamic countries. Perhaps, it is to prevent evil acts, such as the murder of the offerer of inheritance by an heir or an heiress due to the motivation of receiving a portion of the deceased man’s property.Accordingly, the intentional murder causes the prohibition of receiving inheritance.