Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Mohsen Esmaeili ¹
• Hadi Dehnavii ²
• Mahdi Habibiyan ³

¹ Associated Professor of the Department of Law Political Science at Tehran University

² Graduated Degree of the Department of Law at Imam Sadiq(a.s) University

³ PhD Student of Law at Elm & Farhangh University

Abstract

Discussing the permission and whether it turn liability possession to trust possession or not is so important. There are different fundamentals of jurisprudence and lawyers about the nature of the permission that is addressed in this paper. About the nature of the permission that is discussed in this article.
Some jurists and lawmakers considering the permission as a Legal event, in this case a person who is permitted will be responsible. On the contrary, according to the famous sentence between jurists and lawmakers, the permission is legal action while in this case the relationship between permission and “Estiman (demanding) principle” would be paid attention on it. There are also different opinions on this issue. The famous sentence between jurists is the equality of two relations. In this case, it can be concluded that the permission is resolver of responsibility and trustworthy person is not responsible except with extravagance and Flutter. In this paper, while examining the arguments, it is concluded that:
The permission is in itself appropriate the non- responsibility and a factor in the elimination of civil liability, unless explicit condition or implicit condition implies Contrary to it. The main reasons are: first despite the permission, there will be no sources and factors of civil responsibility (seizure, destruction, harmless and etc).  Second a person who is permitted is trustworthy so he is not responsible, because of “The trustworthy have not responsible” principle.

Keywords

• Civil Liability
• liability possession
• permission
• the nature of the permission
• depositary hand
• Estiman (demanding) principle
• Absolute permission