, Tarbiat Modares University,
, Shahid Beheshti University,
, Shahid Beheshti University,
Morteza Shahbazinia is associate professor and ex-dean of law faculty of Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran and the ex-president of the National union Iranian Bar Associations (SCODA). He is specialized in domestic and international arbitration law and foreign investment dispute resolutions. Shahbazinia is the member of the Court of Arbitration at the Arbitration Center of Iran Chamber of Commerce (ACIC), ex-member of Board of Directors of Iranian Central Bar Association, member of Board of Trustees of ICBAR Arbitration Center, member of list of arbitrators in Intergovernmental Organization for International carriage by Rail (OTIF) and member of list of arbitrators in Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC).
One of the most important theories in corporate law is the organ theory. According to this view, the will and actions of directors are deemed to be will and actions of the corporation. Analytically, the personality of directors and corporations is considered to be integrated and this identification is divided into two types of absolute and relative. According to absolute identification, the personality of the director is merged into that of corporation and his personal existence is ignored.
In current world, cases referring to arbitration as means of resolving dispute is an undeniable necessity. Due to some deficiencies in Iranian legal system, strengthening this institution seems to require protective of other legal instruments; one of the most important of which is the principle of good faith. Since currently there is no specific criterion for behaviors with good faith in Iranian arbitration laws of our country. This article by examining the principle of fair trial, introduces criteria and factors such as" Clear Hand, Prohibition of inconsistent behavior, Timely production of documents, Prohibition of Evidence hiding" as standards for measuring the parties behavior in obligation to good faith and continuity during the arbitr
As the rules are more dynamic and more accommodate with the social and economic requirement of the community, they would be more pleased by people, and leads to improve individual's class's standard of living. The way of encountering with a breach of the contract and the violation of contractual obligations are among these rules. It has certain different effect, whether the promisee enforce the promisor to perform its obligation and in case of failure revoke the contract or has the right to choose between referring to the court or revoke the contract in accordance with its own personal benefits. Most of the Imamiyyah jurist believe it has priority to enforce the promiser to perform its obligation than revoke that, Iranian lawyer mostly foll
Joint tortship in its general sense is the intervention of more than one person in committing tort. In this sense, the jointness acompanicity and participates in it. The jointness, in a special sense, is limited to interfere more than two persons in the commission of the operation and the material element of the tort. In the US legal system, in addition to cases where two or more people really commit actus reus of tort, there are instances where with use of titles such as" attribaution", commition of actus reus is attributed to more than one person, Virtually. In this legal system, this is based on goals such as redress and deterrence. In Iranian law, according to the well-known Opinion, the jointness in tort, is subject to the commission o
The parties to arbitration can agree on the applicable law, however, in case of lack of determination, the arbitrator shall determine it according to the appropriate conflict of law rules. Also, the arbitrator can interpret and determine the applicable law. If the applicable law is disregarded, since the arbitral award is final and the act determines the grounds to challenge, the parties cannot challenge the award. Iran’s International Commercial Arbitration Act does not determine disregarding applicable law as a ground for challenging the award, so the parties’ autonomy and finality are in contrast. The research shows that although the court cannot review the award beyond the expressed grounds, parties can add some grounds to it. In so
" Good morals" and" public order" should be regarded as the source of the rule of law and legal propositions so that they have not only a negative role, but also have a positive function. These two sources like other sources are affected by the basis of rules validity in legal system as far as pluralism in legal basis results in different types of" good morals" and" public order". Defining the type of hierarchical relationship between" public order" and" Good morals" also depend on the type of hierarchical relationship in the foundations of legal rules validity; so that we can say in Iranian legal system," religious good morals" and" religious public order" have credit priority. The difference between" Good morals" and" public order" is not
There are different opinions about the application of competition law on the banking system. Many scholars do not consider the banking system to be subject to competition law because they consider the competition as a threat to the stability and security of the banking system. In contrast, some scholars believe in the exercise of competition law in the banking system. It is impossible to fully implement competition law in the banking sector due to the inherent characteristics of the banking system. Competition in the banking system increases efficiency and innovation in service delivery, however; stability is essential to maintain confidence. These purposes are not always consistent. The present paper seeks to examine the theories proposed
A documentary credit consists of a combination of several legal relationships. In some cases, the underlying contract or the contract for the opening of the credit may be illegal; hence the question arises what is the effect of underlying contract on the documentary credit and whether illegality in the underlying contract should be accepted as an exception to the autonomy principle of documentary letters of credit.In the law of Iran, the issue of illegality of the documentary credit itself and the underlying contract has been raised in the civil cases of the biggest bank fraud and the opinion of The majority of judges do not accept illegitimacy as an exception to the principle of autonomy and believe in the absolute sovereignty of the princ
1- Introduction Indirect liability in US, is creation of US case law and plays an important role in the functioning of the trademark system, in order not to mislead the consumer and reduce his search costs, as well as expanded protection of trademark rights. Given the US trade-economic and technological situation, this practice seems justified, which can well guarantee the US commercial and economic interests, not only in the domestic system, but also in the international trade. Innovation is the foundation of sustainable economic development in the age of knowledge-based economy and technological innovation, play a major role. However, the role of non-technological innovation, including trademarks, in economic growth and development has be
Commercial secrets are of economic value and not available to the general public, and reasonable efforts have been made to safeguard its confidentiality. In some cases, after the termination of the employment relationship of the former worker or employee, he or she is the cause for disclosure of the commercial secrets. This study, by studying the concept and the nature of commercial secrets and disclosure of commercial secrets responsibility, investigates the civil liability of commercial secrets disclosure by the former worker. The paper uses a descriptive-analytical method and benefits from library sources. As the finding of this paper? the author concludes that the commercial secrets are defined as a sort of wealth? or property and the a
In the field of private international law, one of the most important issues in litigation is the determination of the law governing the evidence of a lawsuit. At first glance, it may seem that the issues of proof are closely related to the realm of formal law As a result, it is subject to the conflict resolution rule mentioned in Article 971 of the Civil Code, which is based on the principle of independence and national sovereignty of countries and is exclusively governed by the formal law of the seat of the court. However, the rules related to the evidence of litigation have a dual nature (both formal and substantive) and have an obligatory and optional nature. As a result, the law governing them will be different. The purpose of this arti
1. 26 (1) Where a person signs a bill as drawer, indorser, or acceptor, and adds words to his signature, indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal; or in a representative character, he is not personally liable thereon; but the mere addition to his, signature of words describing him as an agent, or as filling a representative character, does not exempt him from personal liability.
no record found