Although arbitration is a Contractual method of dispute settlement but it has a judicial output. This output emerged from imposing the arbitrator's award on disputing parties. The entry of the arbitrator into the arbitration process requires the establishment of a Contractual relationship between him and the parties to the dispute. The agreement which is concluded by the disputers to obligate the arbitrator to settle the dispute is called the "Arbitrator's Contract". This Contract, which is considered less, at least in Iran's law, is the source of the arbitrator entry into the process of arbitration and his intervention in resolving the dispute. According to this Contractual relationship arbitrator obligate to settle the dispute between disputers. In contrast, disputing parties also obligate to pay remuneration. The main practice of this research is to analyze the unknown relationship from the Contract law perspective. An implicit assumption of the issue is twofold, firstly, men of parties in this pattern must be specified and then to check whether the issue and entity or the nature of that correlation can be applicable to the preset Contract forms of civil law or it is a new separate design. Results from the analysis of relationship between arbiter and disputing parties reveals that at least three involved agents must meet the same state of mind on the case, which discusses unraveling issues in return of specified wage and finally this Contract has its own nature and aspect.

In Contractual relationships, the principle is to preserve and continue Contractual relationships in order to prevent social and economic losses. This is the basis of the concept of "conversion of Contract" analysed by judges by considering the "practical result", that is, economic purposes of the parties within the framework of "social interests". Therefore, the conversion of Contract goes beyond the issue of interpretation, since it is justified on the basis of the "socialization of law" approach. In addition, this theory is not in conflict with Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), because it focuses on the socialization of law at the level of "the purpose of the Contract" and does not seek to regain the basis of the validity of the Contract in the social conscience. Therefore, it has been recognised as a legal rule in Fiqh and Articles 144 and 618 of the Civil Codes of Egypt and Afghanistan. In Iranian legal system, it has not been recognized despite its practical implications. Since, the conversion of Contract has economic and social benefits and is not in conflict with Fiqh, it can be adopted in the Civil Code by putting various instances under one title.

This article discusses the cession of Contract. After presenting the definition of cession of Contract, this base on Contractual position and has an independent identity. By dividing the cession of Contract in to executive and judiciary and Contractual, their conditions are investigated.Finally the effects of cession of Contract discussed.

This research aims to study lease Contract among set of Islamic Contracts by explaining the importance and necessity of detailed study about Islamic Contracts and Contractual approach to Islamic economics. In this regard by considering asymmetric information as the most important challenge facing lease Contract, we will study lease Contract using Contract theory and incentives economics. For this purpose, using a library method we study the various aspects of asymmetry of information in the lease Contract considering Islamic economics and we construct a mathematical model to solve the problem. Finally we reach theoretical model that can design optimal Contracts for lease of house (by replacing parameters) in a way that adverse selection problem will be solved. Then we use hypothetical parameters to solve the constructed model using LINGO software, for testing the model.

Introduction: Economic analysis of Contractual compensation is amongst the topics, which have been paid attention by the legal and economic scholars. The root of such a serious attention is the conflict of various goals and philosophies of enactment of the Contractual compensation rules. In an economic perspective, the objective of establishment of compensation rules is to compensate for the loss sustained by the injured party rather than to punish the party in breach. This approach will lead to optional performance of Contract, i. e. a free choice between compensation and specific performance. The outcome of such an approach will be that any obligor in any Contract may breach the Contract and pay a compensation for it. Those believing in advantages of further stipulation of moral principles in the Contract Law however do not go with this view. Infringement of Contract may take place for the purpose of making more profit or avoiding further loss. By studying the types of efficient breach of Contract – even in a traditional view to the Contract Law – this logical conclusion can be reached that some types of infringement of Contract are in no contradiction with the spirit of justice and moral principles. Founded on economic analysis, mere performance of Contractual obligations is not considered as the subject of a Contractual relation, but Contractual obligations are considered subject to efficiency and utility. Therefore, the replacement for specific performance that is Contractual compensation may be the subject of Contract and a desirable one. Methodology: Methodology of justification of the “ Theory of Efficient Breach” is based on the laboratory method. The justification is carried out on the basis of some certain and evidentiary data, gathered through studies and reviews in relevant areas. It’ s, however, obvious that stating a legal theory, without comprehensive knowledge of social phenomena is impossible. Therefore, for the purpose of this research, we kept our eyes on legal and economic phenomena, getting organized in front of us. Results & Discussion: Microeconomics, reviews the responses and reactions of the economic players to various factors and motives, and thereby determines which factors will lead to profitable and gainful outcomes. This eventually and consequently enhances the social wealth. In this regard, and in the economic attitude, there is an approach, known as “ homo economic us” , on the basis of which, economic players have a stable and orderly list of preferences, which they reasonably select in order to maximize profit, and determinedly seek their personal interests. This means it’ s assumed that the individuals are wise, and act in a way that will result in reduction of costs and increment of profit. And in case of increment of costs, they select – from the available options – which will cost them less. Hence, “ homo economic us” approach and a logical player won’ t, in the economist pattern, let the personal feelings stop a wealth-making transaction. Therefore, no specific and strong interpretation is required for “ rationality” for the purpose of justification of this essential prediction of economics, which is simply saying: “ the more costly, risky and difficult an option, the less will such an option be picked” . One of the legal institutions, which distinguishably offers a suitable ground for application of economic analysis, with regard to occurrence of economic and profit-seeking aspects, is Contract. In economic analysis of Contract law, a variety of issues of the Contracts are reviewed and studied, but one of the subjects, which strongly attracted the attention of thinkers of both legal and economic areas, is ‘ Contractual damages’ . Maybe the reason for such attention can be traced back in the answer to the question that what is the goal and philosophy of the damages in the Contract law essentially. Taking into consideration the principle of necessity, the main and initial goal of all legal systems in the area of Contract law, is enforcement of Contract. In other words, it can be said that by formulating the rules and regulations on compensations, the legislator aimed originally at codifying a guarantee for compliance with and enforcement of Contracts. Thus, since the necessity principle of Contracts and liabilities has, in all legal systems, been accepted as an obvious principle, it can be stated that the initial objective of guarantees is to prevent breaking the promises and to implement the provisions of the Contracts. The second function of Contractual damages is that in case of violation of the Contract, the promisor should recompense the promise's loss, and place the promise in the situation as if the Contract has been executed. Then, from a traditional point of view, the objective of formulation of Contractual damages, is to punish the party who has violated the Contract, in such a manner that the promisor will be obligated to perform the Contractual liabilities, because according to the moral approach, Contract is a moral promise, therefore, violation of a Contract is considered as a moral fault. In this respect, formulation of Contractual damages can hinder the breach of Contract, which by nature is considered as a moral promise. On the other hand, based on the economic analysis of the law, which assumes the Contract as a means to achieve economic efficiency and to promote the wealth, the aim of Contractual damages, is to compensate the damages resulting from violation of the Contract, rather than to obligate the promisor to perform his/her promise. Therefore, compensation as a remedy for loss is an adequate substitute for specific performance for the damaged party. So, generally either of the parties, having been fully sure of their net profit even after full compensation of the damages to the damaged party, may find withdrawal of the Contract more profitable. On this basis, violation of Contract might economically be profitable, and consequently encouraged by the law. Therefore, on the basis of economic analysis, whenever breach of Contract can lead to more profit or to prevent further loss in comparison with keeping the promise, it should be supported and promoted by the Contract law, because it’ s to the satisfaction of both promise, whose loss has fully been compensated, and promisor, who’ s gaining even more profit. But this thought is unjustifiable for and rejected by a moral approach, which considers the violation of Contract as breaking a promise. Therefore, there is an evident incompatibility between moral-promissory and instrumental approaches towards the Contract law with respect to breach of a Contract. Conclusion and Suggestions: One of the conflicts of instrumental and moral approaches in relation to the Contract law is that whether economic efficiency should be considered as a sole or prevailing goal in the Contract law or such other goals as morality and justice – as traditional goals of law – should still be observed? In other words, which one is more desirable for the parties to a Contract? Concentration on efficiency as a desire and goal in the law, has been paid attention by legal thinkers, especially the economists, and is of thorough and adequate acceptability. As a shortcut, however, it might be better to stop the arguments over whether the objective of law, particularly the law of Contracts, should mostly be founded on economic efficiency or otherwise such goals as morality, justice and fairness; and instead to accept that there is no agreement in this regard. The law may, at the same time, be at the service of both: it can use the resources efficiently and serve the morality and justice as well. In this research, it was intended, while studying the Contractual damages, to explain kinds of efficient breach of Contract and to sort them – as a subject less gone over before; and to determine that in some cases of efficient breach, there is not necessarily any conflict between two mentioned objectives and goals; and instead in most cases, these two are compatible with each other, and what is an efficient economic solution, is in conformity with morality and justice as well. Moreover, in economic analysis of Contractual damages, it is reviewed that whether the Contractual liabilities are substantive in a Contract solely, or such Contractual liabilities may only be considered as peripheral to efficiency and desirability? Concentration on desirability and efficiency would have the advantage that instead of specific performance, a substitute i. e. Contractual damages can be put in the place of the subject and substance of a Contract as well.

Breach of Contract may occur by the fault of party in breach. There is a variety of degrees in Contractual fault and the highest degree of fault is intentional one. The breach of Contract is considered to be intentional when the party in breach calculates the financial costs and benefits of the breach and then decides not to perform his/her Contractual obligations. The notion of intentional breach and its consequences are recognized in common law and civil law and also in some European instruments such as PECL and DCFR. The intentionality of breach is considered to be relevant in above jurisdictions and instruments. For example, in the case of intentional breach, common law courts allowed the specific performance. They sometimes refused to mitigate the amount of penalty clauses and to recognize the exemption clauses in favor of the breaching party. Also, in civil law jurisdictions the intentional breach works as an allowance for unforeseeable damages. The hypothesis of this contribution is that in the case of intentional breach, courts must take a stricter approach than the usual breach and they should seek to improve the position of the creditor in terms of accessing to Contractual remedies.

The common view in the field of selling and transporting natural gas is that gas is produced, sold and transported according to market needs. But since gas is usually not consumed immediately after production, it needs to be stored before reaching the final consumer. Gas storage is essentially a means to store and supply it in order to regulate the energy market. Due to the access to storage facilities and the fact that the possibility of building tanks is not available for all market participants for several reasons, including the lack of economic justification. Therefore, the owners of the facilities enter into a Contract with the storage customer. The main topic of this research is to examine legal obstacles and challenges of storage service Contracts, especially in underground storage. In this research, knowledge of the components and content of storage services Contract and the operational, commercial and legal principles that are required to conclude a Contract are provided.

Sometimes people have priority to others due to having the right of Priority In conducting a legal action or demanding the fulfilment of right of a certain property. Sometimes the legislator has considered it for some reason for some persons in a particular position. The right of priority is protected by the legislator, and sometimes it is explicitly forbidden to opposing Contract with it. However, the guarantee of this ban, there are disagreements between jurists and lawyers in the cases stated. Some believe conclusion of opposing Contract with priority is void,in contrast, some are considered valid, in the end, others they have chosen the middle solution and they believe that the deal is not affected. In the examples of priority, the overall conclusion is that opposing Contract with priority is un enforceability to third party,Because these transactions have all the components of the Contract, except that there is a barrier to their influence, and that obstacle is the right of priority of the beneficiary, which, in the event of the subsequent payment of his rights, automatic be valid. Accepting this guarantee solution will not only supply the rights of the rightful owner butalso the rights of the parties.

One of the juridical rules is liability of taking delivery property if Contract is canceled, which is interpreted as “ liability of taking delivery property of terminated Contract” . This rule is applicable in (revocable) optional and voidable Contracts. The main question about this rule is that, “ What are the contents, scope, and conditions of fulfillment and evidences of liability of taking delivery property of terminated Contract? ” Researchers of jurisprudence and law haven’ t done any scientific research in reply to this question and clarification of the mentioned rule, so that there appears to be a scientific gap in this case. The present research is intended to remove this scientific gap to accomplish the rule of liability of taking delivery property of terminated Contract and also to answer the above question with necessary studying and analysis of juridical sources and with the help of inference and library method. The most important finding of the research is that liability of taking delivery property of terminated Contract is one of the referents of the principle of ḍ aman al-yad (compensation for damage to property held under trust) and its rules and regulations conform to ḍ aman al-yad.