Fundamental Difference between Rule of Bona Fide and Contract of Bailment and Its Effects with an Emphasis on Imam Khomeini’s Opinion

The rule of bona fide and contract of bailment are two important principles in extinguishing liability. Readdressing these two principles is important given the fact that in the majority of jurisprudential texts they are invoked for extinguishing liabilities. However, there is no clear-cut demarcation in the words of jurists in relation with inclusiveness of the two principles. Understanding proportionality of the two principles can bring about important effects on the majority of jurisprudential and legal issues. From among the arguments Imam Khomeini has made in his jurisprudential works, it can be understood that the issue governing the rule of bona fide is the permission by Sharia law and rationals for its loss or corresponding action. Therefore, wherever exigency of loss is stronger than its corruption, it shall be a reason for enforcement of the rule of bona fide. For that reason, the issue of contract of bailment is indelible and the permission by owner and Sharia law go counter to exigency of loss and corresponding action. Also, Imam Khomeini’s approach toward the two principles regarding their relationship with the general evidence on liability is this that removing rule of bona fide from the evidence on liability is a specialized issue and withdrawal of the contract of bailment depends upon specification of generalities. This paper studies the effects resulting from clarification of the substantive difference between the two principles, among which lack of possibility to stipulate responsibility and liability in rule of bona fide and the possibility of conditioning liability in the contract of bailment can be underscored.