ali parimi; morteza barati
Abstract
A systematic, historical, analytic and comparative study shows that according to most of legal theoreticians the diverging meaning specifies the specification of generalities. If the diverging meaning is against the authority, we must accept the results of authoritativeness and proof. Because commitment ...
Read More
A systematic, historical, analytic and comparative study shows that according to most of legal theoreticians the diverging meaning specifies the specification of generalities. If the diverging meaning is against the authority, we must accept the results of authoritativeness and proof. Because commitment to object is commitment to prerequisites. Thus, the meaning of article one of Law of Torts specifies article 328 of Civil Law. However this view is not accepted in our legal system. In law, to specify a general rule through the meaning of another rule, no principle is obtained. The law-maker uses a law to make use of it without paying attention to its generalities and results. Although in law, the diverging meaning is valid, there is no loyalty to its results. The goal of law-maker is expression not meaning and expression is sufficient, because it is possible that the law-maker does not know all meanings. If there is no divergence between the expressions, there is no room for the meanings. Acting on the basis of rule means acting on the basis of the expressions and not the meanings unless in specific conditions in which the law-maker's will is obvious. However, such a condition is not systematic
