چکیده:
Loss of profit is the damage resulting from being deprived of a benefit that would have occurred if the harmful act had not taken place or through the performance of an obligation by the obligor for the obligee, whether said benefit arises from a specific property or a specific person, or is a benefit obtained solely from the performance of the committed act. Imami jurists do not have a consensus regarding the compensation for loss of profit. Those who argue against its permissibility rely on the argument that the title of 'damage' does not apply to loss of profit, the lack of financial nature of potential benefits, the lack of current existence of the benefit, and the absence of a causal relationship. In contrast, those who argue for its permissibility rely on the rule of 'La Darar' (no harm), 'Itlaf' (destruction), 'Tasbib' (causation), the financial nature of benefits, and the principles of rational people (Bina al-Uqala). By carefully examining the arguments of both proponents and opponents of compensating for loss of profit, we find that proponents consider some instances of loss of profit to be covered by the evidence for compensation, while opponents consider other instances of loss of profit to be irremediable. Therefore, in this writing, achieved loss of profit is considered compensable, while potential loss of profit is deemed irremediable. The criterion for distinguishing between achieved loss of profit and potential loss of profit is that an exclusive causal relationship is established between the achieved loss of profit and the depriving act, whereas such a relationship is not established in potential loss of profit. This article has been conducted using a descriptive-explanatory method and a library-based approach.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The Theory of Compensation for Realized Loss of Profit in Imami Jurisprudence 1 Seyyed Abolghasem Naqibi Rouhollah Zarchipour Abstract: Loss of profit is the damage resulting from deprivation of a benefit that arises in the event of the absence of a harmful act or through the performance of an obligation by the obligor for the obligee, whether the said benefit results from a specific property or a specific person, or is a benefit that is solely obtained from the performance of the committed act.
" He continues by stating that the rule of negation of harm (nafy al-darar) and the verses mentioned for liability in this matter are not sufficient to prove liability, and considers its acceptance as a cause for the emergence of a new jurisprudence, because even the general jurists (fuqaha al-ammah), whose basis of jurisprudence is analogy (qiyas) and juristic preference (istihsan), have not held the view of accepting liability for the benefits of a free person in the event of being prevented from working.
The opinion of a great jurist such as the late Na'ini (Khansari, Muniyat al-Talib, 1373, 3/378) and the opinion of Sayyid Bahr al-Ulum, who believes that: We find no evidence that restricts the rule of "La Darar" (no harm) to cases where its subject is existing property rather than the acquisition of property (Hosseini Ameli, 1419, 14/12), proves that a lack of benefit that is imminent is considered harm.
(
, 
, 
)
