In the insurance contract, assuming the fulfillment of the contractual conditions, the insurer is obliged to fulfill his obligation, to compensate the loss. Sometimes, despite the fulfillment of the conditions for claiming contractual rights for the policyholder (realization of contractual risk), based on the fulfillment of a matter that is typically a breach of obligation by the policyholder, the insurer is released from its obligation, which is interpreted as "Forfeiture ". The basis of this fall of the right can be according to the law or contractual condition. In foreign legal systems, the validity of the clause in the insurance contract is limited to specific cases and subject to compliance with conditions. In French law, the condition of "Forfeiture" is subject to limitations, both in terms of nature and form. In terms of form, the clause must be binding, in the sense that the insured must know precisely which of his obligations the Forfeiture of the right is. It should also be written in clear and bold terms. From a substantive point of view, according to the law of December 31, 1989, it is effective only when the insurer proves that the loss occurred as a result of the policyholder's non-obligation. In the law of England, due to the seriousness of the guarantee of the implementation of the breach of warranty in the law of 1906, fundamental reforms were made in the insurance law of 2015 and in articles 10 and 11 of the insurance law, it is stipulated that the breach of the warranty does not exempt the insurer from the obligation to compensate the damage, but with the breach of the warranty, the insurer's obligation to will be suspended. In addition, the insurer cannot refuse to compensate the damage by using the breach of warranty even if it is not related to the damage. In Iranian law, in Article 15 of the Insurance Law, this ruling is provided for the obligation to inform about the occurrence of an accident and to try to deal with the damage, but regarding whether the parties to the insurance contract can agree on this in other cases as well, or it should be considered limited to legally authorized cases, there is no text. In addition, the law is silent about the legal nature of this condition. The importance of examining the "condition of Forfeiture" is that such a condition is widely used by insurers in insurance contracts. While the provisions of this condition, the collapse of the most important effect of the insurance contract (one of its two cases), It means "Insurer's obligation to compensate". In addition, the explanation of the legal nature of this performance guarantee can help to explain the various aspects of this institution and the conditions of its impact on the legal relationship of the parties and adjust the superior position of the insurer in concluding the contract according to the supplementary nature of the insurance contract. The current research is an applied research and the method of collecting information is a library. The author's research method is descriptive, analytical and critical. The fundamental question is what is the legal nature of the " Forfeiture" in insurance contracts, furthermore, what are its validity conditions? It seems that the nature of this clause is "Falling Obligation" and can be analyzed in the form of causes of falling of obligations and it cannot be considered as a "Exclusion Clause" and the validity of this clause must be confirmed in the insurance contract based on the principle of contractual freedom. This research work is considered fundamental and at the same time practical, which tries to be discussed with an analytical approach and with descriptive, qualitative aspects and using library data to the extent necessary to conduct the research. In order to achieve this, first, according to the background, the required sources were prepared from Persian, English and French legal books and articles, and then according to their content and the analysis of the contents, the desired results, including the explanation of the legal nature of Clause Forfeiture in The insurance contract and its credit terms and conditions were obtained.

The point of departure in the present article is distinguishing two fundamental philosophical-legal questions as follow: ‘Why are we allowed to punish’ and ‘Why do we punish’. Since the focus of traditional approaches has been mainly put on the latter question, jurists have failed to pay scant attention to the former one. Addressing the first question leads us to reflect on ‘the permissibility of applying coercive measure against human beings, not the goal pursued through such application’. This leads us further on to reflect on the four strictly deontological theories of punishment, the last of which (the right Forfeiture theory of punishment) is discussed here. The right Forfeiture theory of punishment which itself can be discussed in the light of two weak and strong versions has faced various challenges raised by its critics. I, defensively, address four challenges of ‘indeterminate authorization’, ‘status’, ‘suitability’, and ‘duration and breadth’ by an argumentative-critical method.

The Forfeiture of rights serves as a general remedy for the policyholder's obligations before, during, or after the insured event. However, since this remedy is contingent upon a breach of obligations by the policyholder, it typically becomes effective only after the occurrence of the event that is the subject of the insurance contract. The insured’s right to claim compensation or receive insurance benefits is forfeited based on an act typically constituting a breach of obligation by the insured. The French legislator has not explicitly stipulated cases of Forfeiture of rights within insurance law; however, it has recognized the insurer's right to include a Forfeiture clause. In the common law system, Forfeiture clauses are mainly discussed in the form of "warranty clauses."In Iranian law, Article 15 of the Insurance Law provides provisions regarding the obligation to notify the occurrence of an incident and to take measures to mitigate damages. This research aims to describe, analyze, and elucidate the theoretical foundations and conditions affecting the waiver of rights in insurance contracts. In this research, library-based, descriptive, and analytical methods were employed, resulting in the conclusion that the jurisprudential basis for the condition of the Forfeiture of rights is the "rule of acting to harm," while its legal basis is private punishment. The effect of this enforcement mechanism on the parties to the insurance contract must be examined in light of the distinction between intentional breach of obligation or proof of breach of obligation and the causal relationship between the breach of obligation and the resulting damage.

The legislature for confiscation and the government seizure of property as the crime devices has not observed the principle of transparency and minimal substantive and procedural guarantees. This research with descriptive-analytic method has examined the current situation in the national laws and compared it with the laws of other systems and determines reformative policies. In the current laws not only the definite instances and criteria for the confiscation and ownership of assets have not been mentioned but also have been neglected the discourse of the expropriation based on the fictional supposition of the guilty property and with justification of the prevention of the repeated crime, the principles of necessity, the proportionality, damages, independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the identity of the party and the necessity of speeding up proceedings and the right to property has faced with major risk. As a result of the study It can be said that the evidences such as the criminal aims of the seizure of property, the fundamental characteristics of the punishment in this sanction and the legitimate possession of the owner until the commitment of the crime show that the government seizure of property as instrument of crime is financial penalty. The reformative suggestions are: the domestic legal system for the enforcement of confiscation orders, besides considering substantiative guarantees including the principle of minimizing, the principle of legality, the necessity of mens rea of the abetting offence, the individualization of the criminal liability and prohibition of inhuman punishment, it should respect the procedural criminal guarantees such as the supposition of innocent and the other defendant’ s rights.

The end of an oil field does not mean the end of operating costs for the companies involved in the project and One of the most costly stages of any oil project is the decommissioning. This step is basically costly and without economic income for oil companies, considering that it is the last step in implementing an oil project and this has led to oil companies in many cases to default their obligations at this stage. The Joint Operating Agreement is the major legal framework under which oil companies will implement this stage in partnership. Examining the current approaches in the oil industry worldwide and surveying the disadvantages of them and finally providing practical suggestions to prevent breaches of obligations are the topics that will be study in this article. The result is that improving the efficiency and modifying some of the current mechanisms is a more appropriate way other than creating a new approach to this problem.

As the importance of economic history in recent years, some of Iranian and non-Iranian researchers research on the recognition of economic situation of different period of Iran history. Among non-Iranian researchers, we can call Willem Floor and Rudi Matthee who are compiled more at this ground. They relied on records and archival materials, in reviewing of the different subject of Iran economics as finance, trade, taxation and bazaar at qajar and safavid periods. The different economical subjects are full of vocabulary and skilled idioms of historic, geographic, financial and record-recognition cases, so to translate these texts from English to Farsi, having the skillful translators must be essential. At present time, the translation of texts of economic history will be done at an abnormal speed rather than past and translators try to translate the historical text as soon as possible. The question is here that who has the qualification to translate the economic history. What is the consequence in not having enough skill in translation of texts of economical history? In this paper we study translation of “ A fisical history of Iran in the Safavid and Qajar periods” by Willem Floor critically and try to find out query.

The main question is whether the agreement to change the organ subjects to qisas to a similar organ is legitimate and causes the right of qisas to be forfeited concerning the original organ? There has not been a comprehensive research research in this regard with an exception of a brief outline of some examples in the codified criminal law and jurisprudence texts. This article attempts to re-examine the issue by presenting new analysis while critically studying the existing views. According to the famous Imami view, this agreement is not permissible and the right of qisas remains with the termination of the agreed organ. Therefore, it is necessary to pay the dues of the similar organs that have been cut off.The reasons of the famous view are as follows: the non-realization of the originality, the irreconcilability of the blood issue, the principle of non-substitution, the non-inclusion of the rule of body integrity, and the inclusion of the obligation of qisas in the original place. Indeed, due to the invalidity of the said agreement, according to the famous view, the left hand exchange (i.e. the fall of revenge from the right hand) has not been realized and on the other hand, the same exchange (left hand) has also been cut off.According to the second view, agreeing to amputate a similar limb instead of the main limb causes the right of qisas to fall and turn it into ransom. In such cases, on the one hand, the victim is entitled to receive diya for his right hand, and on the other, due to the amputation of  criminal's left hand, he is required to pay diya. In fact, agreeing on left-handed qisas instead of right-handed qisas is like forgiving the victim of right-handed qisas in exchange for left-handed qisas. Of course, it should be maintained that victim with left-handed who agreed on qisas has abandoned right-handed qisas, not that he has turned it into diya since if his goal was to receive the diya for his right hand, he could demand it from the criminal, and there was no need for the agreed qisas of the left hand.According to the third point of view, in practice, there is an exchange between the place of qisas and its similar organ, and the similar organ replaces the retaliated organ, which will result in the fall of the victim's right of qisas. The evidence of the third view are the implied amnesty of the agreement, the possibility of a change in the organ's qisas and reference to the rules of harmlessness and exclusion.The present article, with a descriptive and analytical method, while critically examining the jurisprudential foundations of the mentioned viewpoints and giving a reasoned preference to the promise of deserving punishment as a result of the agreed qisas of the similar organ, believes that such agreements and compromises can be based on. He considered it to be correct and legitimate and considered its provisions to be enforceable. In this regard, while studying the sayings and proofs of the jurists, by presenting proofs beyond the documents that have been presented for the third point of view, this opinion has been strengthened, the proofs of the illegitimacy of the agreement on the same organ's reparations are also disputed.The pieces evidence of the selected point of view are as follows:Analyzing the issue based on the aspect of the right of qisasThe basic rule in law is that the authority is in the hands of the right holder, and transferability, revocation, compromise, pardon, and forgiveness are among its accessories. So, first of all, since revenge is a special right of the victim, then it must be possible to judge the legitimacy of such an agreement. Secondly, considering the fact that the tortfeasor, even for free, can waive his right, then as a priority, he will be able to waive his right of qisas by agreeing to the qisas of the similar organ. Thirdly, due to the personal nature of the right to qisas in crimes against the soul, it is not possible to execute qisas without demanding compensation from the victim. Therefore, ruling to invalidate the agreement and re-implementation of qisas is contrary to this Muslim rule.Analyzing the problem in terms of substantive similarityBased on numerous pieces of evidence, there is a balance between the interests and functions of similar organs; which can be cited in order to prove the legitimacy of the aforementioned agreement.Applying the verse of qisas; From the honorable verse "Write down against them, that the soul is in the soul and the eye is in the eye and..." (Ma'idah/45), which explains the law of execution of qisas due to the necessity of similarity, it can be used that the paired body parts that are opposite each other and the ruling of qisas. They are exported, regardless of the right and left, they are considered similar to each other.Habib Sajestani's narration from Imam Baqir (a.s.): "Regarding the rights of Muslims, where a person has a hand, the hand should be placed against the hand..."Homogenization of similar organs in the verse; The chapters on limb amputation are used in the works of jurists, whose view of similar limbs is almost likeness and ruling on punishment of left hand in case of lack of right hand, based on this basis.From the point of view of custom, the organs of the pair are considered similar, and characteristics such as right and left are not considered by custom.Problem analysis based on the philosophy of qisas; The main purpose of the law is to legislate qisas punishment, deterrence, providing security and life of the society and healing the wounded feelings of the victim and the society. It seems that both of the aforementioned goals can be achieved with the agreement of similar organs.Arrange rational purpose for agreement.First: It is possible that rational and valuable effects and benefits will be obtained from the said agreement. Secondly: It is possible that the motive of benevolence is also desired in the qisas of the similar organ.Requirement of No Harm and The Dar'e RulesThe verdict of non- qisas ultimately leads to the qisas of two life organs for one victim. Therefore, referring to the harmless rule, the fall of the right of qisas against the victim is explained.Also, the rule of Dar'e, also includes qisas, and with the qisas of a similar organ, the legitimacy of re-implementation of qisas is questioned, the fall of the right of qisas seems more appropriate.Legal evidencesAlthough the legislature of Iran has not explicitly commented on this matter, according to the articles 347, 361, 363 and 365 of the Islamic Penal Code, conciliation and agreeability of the right of qisas, in each of the stages of prosecution, proceedings and execution, has clearly accepted and considered the right of qisas to fall and the hypothesis of this article is confirmed.

The confiscation of property that is derived from crime in various criminal procedures has always been used as an effective weapon, and, with the development of domestic and international criminal law policies, it has made varieties of ways to spend this kind of property. Procedures such as establishing special crime victim funds or re-social using from funds derived from the confiscation of property derived from crime have been seen in domestic and international instruments. The important point that should not be neglected in this process is the need to adapt these practices to human rights, which has been mentioned in both judicial and internal documents as well as in international instruments. The need to strike a balance between spending confiscation interests of crime-related property in ways that empower victims of crime, such as terrorist operations or the empowerment of societies that are mostly targeted at criminals in the domestic or transnational scope and respecting the rights of third parties with good faith and distinguishing between legal and illegal property must always be considered in the confiscation proceedings.

Ḥajj is one of the conditional obligations and becomes mandatory for the mukallaf (the legally responsible individual) once they achieve financial capability or ʾistiṭā‘ah.  Based on the consensus of the jurists (ʾijmā) and with reference to clear evidence, a mukallaf is prohibited from manipulating their property in a way that would remove their financial capability after they acquire ʾistiṭā‘ah. However, jurists have differing views on whether the prohibition is absolute or conditional, with several opinions presented. Some consider the criterion for prohibition to be the ability of the journey, while others define it as the departure of the caravan, and some the arrival of the months of Ḥajj. Yet another group asserts that the prohibition is absolute. The present study is conducted using the descriptive-analytical method and library research, and concludes that the individual is prohibited from depriving themselves of this capacity under any circumstances after achieving ʾistiṭā‘ah. Some advocates of the absolute prohibition of forfeiting ʾistiṭā‘ah have made exceptions, permitting the individual to act in cases on necessity. This stance is supported by narrative evidence and jurisprudential principles. In terms of legal status (ḥukm-i ważʿī), non-essential transactions carried out using the nafaqah allocated for Ḥajj are valid and legally binding.

Forfeiting is a financing method and is the least expensive, fastest and least risky method compared to traditional tools. It provides the financial needs of business activities and investors, including the need for international trading liquidity through Transfer of long-term demands without termination. Financing in this method is concluded in the form of a contract, relying on its instruments, such as bills and promissory notes, between the forfeiter and the creditor. In this study, the environment and financing instruments in the Forfeiture contract and the impact of these relationships and tools on its pillars are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Nowadays, all transactions related to goods and services can be the subject of a Forfeiting contract because the exporter's sole responsibility to the importer is the goods' quality and reliability. In recent years, transactions that focus on developing oil and gas fields and raw materials such as oil, mineral raw materials and durable goods using standard tools in forfeiting such as draft, promissory notes, letters of credit and transferable payment guarantees, can be financed.