Marriage creates different rights for woman، including the right to receive dowry، alimony، etc. But in some cases it is possible that the man be unable to pay it due to some new issues that have been arisen، for example insolvency. So it can be said that receiving dowry and alimony is the woman's right، but law has provided some solutions for the woman in the case of inability to pay each of them. For example، in the case of failure to pay the dowry she has the right to do the particular submission and even she can split the dowry and do not comply the husband until receiving the last installment (as it has been mentioned in the JUDICIAL PRECEDENT). The supreme court by the JUDICIAL PRECEDENT number 708 dated 22. 5. 1387 announced that the dowry split do not conflict the right of JUDICIAL PRECEDENT and consequently sentencing the 718 dating to 13. 2. 1390 expanded the realm of lien to the absolute couple duties. Although these views seem to finish the conflicts، but correctness، effects، and the legal consequences of applying it needs to be analyzed and reviewed. This study which have been done by library and analytical approach analyzes the lien wife in the JUDICIAL procedure and beside analyzing the principle number 1058 of the civil law، it has been found that if both the man and woman have applied the lien، what should be done، and also it has been clarified that if a part of the dowry was not paid the woman has the lien until the time that the rest is paid and in the case of insolvency this is not set aside.

JUDICIAL Security is the concept based on which the reputation, life, property and all material and intellectual rights of the Human Being are protected by law and keep guarded by the Judiciary Power. Creating such an environment means observing some criteria by which the legal protection goal, namely reaching legal justice, is realized. Securing justice protection for all and the equal protection of the people by law, is on the shoulder of the Judiciary Power. The main question which is put foreword and studied in this regards is that what rights are included in the pre trial stage and how Iran legal PRECEDENT treats in this regards? The findings of this study reveals that different elements and real manifestations are put on sharp focus in Iran criminal law at the pre trial stages including the steps for discovering crimes and preliminary investigations and among the most important legal protection elements in the initials stages of the investigations considered by the law maker are illegal detention ban, the rights and guarantees governing the accused summoning, the legal protection elements at the crime detection stage and the right for being notified of the accusation subject, the right for having attorney, the limitation on interim detention decree; specially in the civil procedural law approved in 2013. Among the legal PRECEDENTs, although in a limited scope, some opinions can be seen in which lack of observing the legal protection criteria has been the causes for the interrogator disciplinary conviction at the Disciplinary High Court for Judges.

The resolution condition, unlike the right to resolve a contract, which leads to the creation of the right of rescission, will automatically dissolve the contract, and its effect is not subject to the creditor’s will. However, the beneficiary of the resolution condition may seek to avoid the condition and secure his interests through the continuation of the contractual relationship or using other guarantees to enforce the breach of contract after the fulfillment of the condition. The possibility of waiving the resolution clause is a point of dispute both in doctrine and in JUDICIAL PRECEDENTs. Opponents of the possibility of waiving the resolution condition emphasize the coercive nature of the effect of such condition and the impossibility of restoring the dissolved contract, and on the other hand, among the reasons of the proponents, one can emphasize the protective nature of the resolution condition. This research, using jurisprudential and comparative law and JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, has concluded that due to the distinction between resolution clause and the right to rescission institutions in Iranian law, it is not logically possible to unilaterally deviate from the resolution condition. However the parties can agree on the renewal of the contract after the fulfillment of the resolution condition.

In Iran's legal system, binding JUDICIAL PRECEDENTs should be sought in Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. Therefore, Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENTs are considered as the main sources of law. Now, if we believe that the PRECEDENT is formed due to stability and continuity; Requiring all JUDICIAL authorities to follow a certain interpretive opinion that is issued a few months after the approval of the law cannot be considered a "PRECEDENT". Because, in this sense, the interpretation position of the Supreme Court has been reduced to legislation. Considering the mentioned criticism, present research has tried to analyze the content of fifty-eight Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENTs issued between 1392 and the end of 1401 Solar Hijri, while explaining the philosophy and position of the Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, classifying the Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, and extracting the components criminal policy of the Supreme Court of Iran. These components include the lack of regulated methodology in interpretation, adopting a lenient criminal policy and violation of the law. In addition, the reasons for the large number of Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENTs, in the above-mentioned duration, are minimal participation of executive agents in the approval of laws, dispersion and experimental nature of laws, and the lack of coherence between legislative and JUDICIAL criminal policy.

The "uniformity of the JUDICIAL PRECEDENT", according to the provisions of Article 161 of the Constitution, is one of the aims of our JUDICIAL system. There are various ways to create uniformity of the JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, including issuance of Decision as a Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. Both the Supreme Court and the Administrative Justice Court have the legal authority to issue of Decision as a Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, and so far, many of the two chambers have issued Decisions. However, the Decisions as a Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENT faces many challenges that, given the important position of these Decisions in our legal-JUDICIAL system, it is necessary to address these challenges. The first step in achieving this goal is to identify the challenges that are the subject of this paper. The main question of this article is: What are the challenges facing the Decisions as a Unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENT? The results of this descriptive and analytical study show that some of the challenges of this institution are structured in nature, which can be inconsistent with the constitution, the lack of religious and constitutional supervision, the multiplicity of issuers and overlapping subordinates, inaccurate basics of Decisions, Lack of coverage of out-of-Decision conflicts. The unclear timing of entry into force and the extent of their impact on the past can be mentioned. Others are rooted in the functioning of the issuing authority, which points to Non-Sufficiency, Not timely, non-compliance with Choosing more important things, and lack of Strength.

Today, there is less dissidence in the limitation of implementation of the principle of contractual freedom. Especially, the principle cannot be considered as a basis of legitimacy and validity of the contract in B2C contracts or where a person in a weaker position than the other, or in standard contracts or contracts that are not negotiated by the parties. The imposition of any unjust and unfair condition that is contrary to good morals, public order and the obligatory rules is invalid. This prohibition cannot be violated by concluding a contract or including a condition in the contract. The sanction of the implementation of such a violation is the invalidity of the legal action. The uniform JUDICIAL PRECEDENT no 794 expresses the same view. The surplus profit condition is contrary to the general economic order and contrary to the obligatory rule and violates the prohibition of the legislator. Inspired by this this uniform JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, the courts should in any other case easily rule on the invalidity of a legal act which has violated a prohibition, and in principle prohibitions in the banking and monetary matters.

Complaining about the bankruptcy order is very important as it affects the rights of the interested parties. Before the issuance of unified JUDICIAL PRECEDENT No. 789 of the year 2019 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, there was doubt in the doctrine regarding the rule of special provisions of the Commercial Law to complain about the bankruptcy order, and in practice, there was no specific jurisprudence on how to invoke these articles. Although the subject of disagreement that created the aforementioned unanimity vote is the deadline for the third party's protest against the bankruptcy order, the said decision has only emphasized the validity of the articles of the Commercial Law, which inevitably, without studying the conflicting opinions, it is difficult to understand that the subject of the dispute is the binding of the third party's protest to the times specified in the law. In addition, the validity or invalidity of the provisions of this law was only one of the questions that were answered by issuing the above decision, however, there are still many other uncertainties regarding the interested parties and their inclusion in the parties inside or outside the lawsuit, whether absent or present in the preliminary hearing, the competent court, the origin, and deadline for filing a complaint against the bankruptcy order that have been tried in this article to give clear and convincing answers to the above questions and uncertainties.

The process of acquisition of land in English and Iranian law takes place under a specific procedure that may be questioned for validity. One type of the examining of objection is JUDICIAL review, which is high supervisory, will be applied in such manner that all actions will be in accordance with the elements that are necessary for acquisition. The source of the JUDICIAL review is different between English jurisprudence, so three views have been put forward on the subject that compilation of ultra vires doctrine with common law, has excelled. But in Iran, despite JUDICIAL PRECEDENT effort, the law-based view remains dominant. The English JUDICIAL PRECEDENT has also taken appropriate steps in the development of this theory in the law of acquisition of land and has outlined various ways in motives of JUDICIAL review; substantive ultra vires and procedural ultra vires, infringement human rights, legitimate expectation, natural justice, proportionality, unreasonableness. However, the English JUDICIAL PRECEDENT has made some exceptions as general policies of the country. The major of decisions in JUDICIAL review in acquisition of land, are in the form of quash. However, there are some cases in the English JUDICIAL PRECEDENT that have been cited another decision.

One case of violation of the rules of procedure before the ICJ is “ non-appearance of one of the parties in the proceedings” that is always possible to occur in light of the principle of consent to jurisdiction. Default proceeding is the manner that through the application of article 53 of the Statute, the non-appearing party would not be able to prejudice the rights of the appearing party and preventing the proper administration of justice. In this article, in accordance with JUDICIAL PRECEDENTs, it is shown that the Court continues the proceedings in whole or in part of contentious cases, with due regard to the evidence of the appearing party and informal documents of the non-appearing party in the event of non-appearance of respondent and impartially conducts its duties of determining jurisdiction and rendering judgment in favor of appearing party if the claim is established both as a matter of fact and law. Although the continuation of the proceedings may prejudice the right of non-appearing party, this is a consequence that has been accepted and therefore must be obliged.

In a division of estate, some claims are raised by the litigants during or after the proceedings. Ambiguity of the law causes various disagreements in the JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, which sometimes may delays in the proceedings. These cases come in several forms and can have different effects. Some of them affect the amount of assets and liabilities of the estate, such as claim of ownership to the entirety or portion of the estate or claiming for a debt against the deceased. Some of them affect the number of heirs to whom the share of inheritance is allocated. For example, one or more heirs waive their rights to the estate in exchange for the money or property they receive from the deceased during his lifetime. Also, after the division, the heirs may claim imbalance (Ghabn) or defect in their share of the inheritance and thus affect the status of the division. Another issue that may be raised in the proceedings is the provisions enshrined in the Law Relating to the Requirement to Officially Register Immovable Property of 2024, and failure to comply with these provisions may result in the court’s refusal to accept the agreement on the division of the estate with a private deed. Here, while examining the judges' approach to dealing with these claims, an attempt is made to find a solution to overcome the above challenges.