As a legal-economic event, bankruptcy, which leads to a halt in the business life of the business people, has a direct impact on the economic interests of a whole society. One of the proceedings associated with bankruptcy involves the restitution claims by third parties against bankrupts or vice versa. The question here is how the modern approach to bankruptcy, which is based on economic theories as independent bases for restitution claims, makes a difference in the way these claims are handled compared to the traditional approach that is based on the principle of equality of creditors. It is arguable that economic theories can be solid bases for the construction and enforcement of restitution claims in bankruptcy, their advantage over the traditional approach being that the ability to reclaim property in the new approach is attuned to the goal that the merchants’ capital be returned to them as much as possible. That is why this approach takes the bankrupt’s claim against the third party as the principal form of a restitution claim, and the claim of third parties against bankrupts only as exception. The modern approach is, accordingly, conducive to the restructuring of the bankrupt’s capital and will help, by offering amenable interpretations of, and modifications to, the relevant rules, to prevent the collapse of the society’s businesses and its adverse effects.

The article deals with a semantic scrutiny into the meaning of "restitution" of illegally possessed property and its relation to similar concepts. Here "restitution" has been used in its absolute meaning, i. e. "dispossession of a person from property obtained without legitimate and legal cause", and not limited to "returning of the object to its legal owner". Based on this, to establish the truthfulness of the concept of "restitution, there is no need for a private plaintiff to exist-contrary to whose interest such illegal possession runs, rather, the Substitute Asset is classified under the concept “ restitution” . The Arabic rule "حرمت اکل مال به باطل" (meaning: prohibition of eating the wrong property) and wide scope of concept of “ مال حرام” in the Islamic jurisprudence also supports this Opinion. In British Law, according to the most recent viewpoints, in order for the "restitution" to take effect the illegal possession should not necessarily be to the detriment of the plaintiff or any other third person; rather the axial fact is that nobody’ s property is expected to increase unduly. In the Iranian and British legal texts, this meaning of restitution (dispossession of a person from illegally obtained property) has been mixed with similar concepts especially "confiscation", and has created a kind of Semantic confusion. Relying on the priority of meaning over the apparent wording, the article seeks a suggestion to this existing confusion and disparity.

The right to receive consular protection and its guarantee by the host state is an element of making the right to a fair trial effective. Its development in the practice of human rights treaty bodies as a human right has put consular protection in interaction with human rights, especially the right to fair trial and the right to life. Violation of this right and depriving individuals in national courts and, conviction and sentence based on consular deprivation may lead to the ineffectiveness of criminal proceedings and the violation of some substantive rights, such as the right to life and Freedom from torture. The present essay, with an analytical-descriptive method, seeks to answer the question of how the Humanistic approach affects restitution as an appropriate remedy for the violation of the right to receive consular protection. It seems that Relative restitution in the form of review and reconsideration of sentences and punishments, provided to effectiveness, is considered an effective and appropriate remedy and guarantees the human rights of foreign nationals and the legitimate interests of the host state. On the other hand, the approach of full restitution in the form of annulment of the issued sentences and punishments is not considered an appropriate remedy due to providing an opportunity to escape from criminal justice and denying the jurisdiction of the host state. International precedent, alongside Cessation and non-repetition, has chosen partial restitution, provided to its effectiveness.

Generally, compensation for environmental crime damages meets two major challenges. The governmental nature of criminals, which causes a huge number of victims, is the first one. Secondly, as the Iranian legal system of civil liability is based on the theory of fault, it is not efficient enough to deal with this issue. However, based on the international law and Iranian legal system, we try to recognize criteria for compensation of environmental crimes. In these two systems, environmental compensation has a restoration nature and, on the other hand, it is based on the views of the offender and the governments. From this point of view, environmental criminal is required to restore the damages into its former circumstance. Otherwise, the government is responsible for compensating the environmental crimes through a specific fund, called environmental fund.

In Common Law system, the aggrieved party could recover benefits delivered to the breaching party as remedy for breach of contract. In normal contract damages, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff for losses suffered as the result of breach; while restitution damages seeks to prevent unjust enrichment by the breaching party and serves this purpose by restoring the gains received by the defendant to plaintiff. In Iranian law, restitution arises in cases of voluntary or involuntary dissolution of contract and in some cases may serve as damages. The research reveals that, notwithstanding some differences in particulars, there many similarities between the two systems in the subject under discussion.

In this study, we measured experimentally the coefficient of restitution as a function of impact velocity for metal and plastic spheres impacting Plexiglas plate. The results obtained in the air show that the coefficient of restitution decreases when impact velocity increases. In other word, impact velocity and the material properties such as Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of the particle and the plate significantly affect the particle rebound trajectories in the air. Thus, these parameters profoundly affected the propagation of elastic waves, elastic surface deformation and the effective coefficients of restitution. Conversely, the results obtained in water show that the restitution coefficient increases when impact velocity increases. For impact velocity larger than a critical value the particles show a reverse motion of bouncing and "e" increases monotonically with their impact velocity and reaches a constant value at their terminal velocity. The results also show that as the particles experience successive rebounds, the coefficient of restitution from the first to the final impact systematically increases in the air and decreases in the water.

Usually, the loss suffered for breaking the obligation is one of the responsibilities bases on contractual liability. Now, the key question concerns the profits that the wrongdoer has obtained. Can we say the party who breaks his obligation under the contract is liable because of his profits without any loss to the other party? Is he required to transfer the benefits to the other party? There have been disagreements on this question in Common Law private law. The essay with descriptive-analytical method searches the answer in Common Law, Iranian Law, and the Convention on International Sale of Goods (Vienna 1980). The results show although gain-based liability in Common Law contract law is seldom has been awarded by the courts and there are some barriers against it, but they can be eliminated by new bases. Considering traditional principles and rules, it is problematic to accept gain-based liability result of breaking the contract in Iranian law. Also, restitutionary liability can be only a way to calculate the loss of the party in the Vienna Convention.

According to the opinion of famous jurists and legal scholars, what becomes the property of the wife from the dowry through the marriage is the entire dowry; But after the marriage, the wife's ownership is fixed on half of the dowry and unstable on the other half, and it becomes fixed after intimacy. In case of divorce before intimacy, the wife's shaky ownership of half of the dowry will be lost and it is separated from her property and given to the husband. If the wife discharges the husband’s obligation from the dowry after the marriage, and this marriage leads to divorce before intimacy, the question arises as to whether the husband has the right to restitute half of the dowry or not. The findings based on the Analytical-descriptive method show that the proofs of the promise to allow the return of the spouse for half of the dowry are not complete and conclusive, and by referring to the jurisprudence rules of benevolence, justice, and fairness, the promise is proven to be not permissible for the returning of it to husband. Also, if we believe in the existence of an implied condition of the duration of marriage in the dowry, and we consider it as a type of contract, we can use the violation of the condition in the discharge situation (the condition of the duration of marriage) and give the wife the right to reject the discharge through the option of violating the condition. As a result, the husband must pay half of the dowry to the wife.