---

The discussion is about whether the Article No. 265 of Civil Code just has the meaning of non-voluntarily, or the presumption of owing of the one who gives the property is deduced from it. There are two opinions in this regard, and the supporters of either of these have their own reasons to prove their opinion. Upon the propounding, analyzing and surveying these proofs, first the paragraph 1 of the Article 1235 of French Civil Code should be compared with the Article of 265 of our Civil Code to know in which of these articles owing of the one who gives the property is presupposition of legislator. Upon reviewing the record of Islamic jurisprudence of the property which is given to other directly or paying the debt by virtue of assignment, as well as difference of them with each other and through mentioning number of High Court of Cassation decisions, we will enter into explaining the position of judicial precedent about the contents of these Articles to understand which of these views is in conformity with presumption of the courts. Finally separating the various presumptions of the issue from each other, we’ll find out that payment through assignment from the view point of tenet and injunction is different from rendering the property directly, and we must accepet that the only existing presumption in this Article is the presumption of being non-gratuitous and there exists no other presumption. In other words, if the legislator has not sought the creation of the presumption of owing of the property giver, it is for the sake of non-existing of such appearance in the custom.

---

          Restitution of earned profit by infringers is a way of remedy for intellectual property damages that is based on the rule of preventing unjust enrichment and has been predicted by some I.P. pioneering countries as the guarantee of infringement of I.P rights. The plaintiff may require the above-mentioned remedy instead of, or beside the lost profit. It is an appropriate way to compute the remedy if it does not cause unfair increase in remedy. According to the criterion, the plaintiff will be entitled to the restitution of all profit due to transactions if the loss is proved to have been made, unless the defendant proves that all or part of the profit was earned due to other factors excluding infringed I.P. rights. Iranian I.P. rules have not foreseen such criterion, however, considering the acceptance of preventing unjust enrichment rule in religious jurisprudence and law-among them the subject of vindication that allows the restitution of properties & assets faultlessly-it can be concluded that the right holder (plaintiff) can undoubtedly return the profit made by the infringer through the infringement of I.P. rights.    

---

In civil law systems, damages for breach of contract are divided into loss suffered and loss of profits. But in Common law systems, a party to the contract is regarded to have three interests: expectation, reliance and restitution. Breach of contract deprives the aggrieved party from one or more of these interests and entitles him to claim the related damages. Contract damages in proper sense include expectation damages.  It has a relatively long background in Common law systems and is regarded as the most important basis for determining contract damages. In the face of expectation interest, some Common law experts attempted to support reliance interest. Although their theory could not satisfy the courts, in practice it has deeply affected Common law literature on the criterion for assessing contract damages.  
Following civil law approach, Iranian legal literature as well as some Iranian Acts adopted the twofold division of damages, but study of Common law approach could help in the understanding of the aims and types of contract damages too.
This article tries to introduce these three interests and damages and study the position of Imamyyah fiqh and Iranian law in this regard. 
.

---

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 أکل 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.
 
 

---

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.