نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه قم
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
According to the principle of ḍamān al-yad (liability of possession), any unauthorized use of another person’s property entails liability, unless the possessor is considered a fiduciary (amīn). One of the most important examples of a fiduciary is an agent in contracts of trust, such as wadiʿa (deposit) and personal lease contracts. The fiduciary nature of the agent’s possession may raise the assumption that the agent is exempt from liability in the event of failure to fulfill the contracted task. From a legal perspective, a potential conflict arises between two sets of rules: The general rule of contractual liability (Article 227 of the Iranian Civil Code), which considers breach of contract as a basis for liability, and the presumption of non-liability in fiduciary possession (yad amānī). The central issue is whether a genuine contradiction exists between these two frameworks, and if so, how it should be resolved. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method, argues that the relevant types of contracts must be distinguished. In contracts like wadiʿa, where the agent’s duty is limited to the safekeeping and return of property, the principle of istimān supports the agent and exempts them from liability. In contrast, in contracts such as personal service leases (ijārah al-ashkhāṣ), where the agent’s obligation is to perform a specific task with the entrusted property (beyond mere safekeeping), the principle of istimān cannot be invoked to exempt the agent from liability for non-performance.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)