Saving patients' lives is an important duty for physicians. Regardless of the level of a physician’s skills, there is always a possibility of damage or loss in patients’ life. In jurisprudence, there is a dispute as to whether a physician is responsible if he commits medical mistakes in the course of treatment. Some scholars believe that a physician is always responsible for damages related to his professional mistakes whether he has obtained permission or not. They base their arguments on the generality of the related narrations ofajir (hired) and juridical rules such as Itlaf (destruction), Tasbib (causing damages), La darar (denegation of harmfulness) and Qorur (deception).On the other hand, some others believe that physicians are never responsible for such damages. They base their arguments on theIhsan (beneficence) rule andBara’ah (quittance) principle. They argue that physicians have not undertaken achieving the improvement result and they are merely responsible for treatment of the patients.According to Bara’ah principle, physicians could be released from such responsibility. In other words, they are always responsible unless they obtain quittance from their patients. This argument is based on the general rules of al-osr wal-haraj (denegation of hardships) in the society along with Sokuni’s narration. In addition, the necessity of commitment to conditions is another reason for this argument. Exploring the grounds of responsibility (al-ziman) and the grounds for their release fromal-ziman the latter argument proves to be more acceptable. Therefore physicians should obtain permission from the patients or their guardians before taking medical actions and also the veterinary should obtain quittance from the owner of animal. Theses evidences are stronger and they are not responsible after obtaining quittance.

Civil liability resulting from harm to intellectual property depends on three important factors: theoretical foundation of intellectual property, the nature of intellectual property and Islamic legal bases of civil liability.This essay discusses labour, personality, reward and utility theories as foundation of intellectual property. Then the nature of intellectual property is discussed under the title of ownership-property and usufruct. Finally, Islamic legal bases such as the principle of prevention of deliberate destruction of other's property (Qaedeh talaf) and the principle of no harm (Qaedeh la zarar) are discussed.

The rule “ During the time of having the option or right to withdraw from a contract of sale, the buyer who does not have the right to withdraw from a transaction is responsible for any damage to what is sold / bought” is one of the most definite rules in Islamic jurisprudence. One of the important issues related to this rule is its scope and extent of coverage in comparison to other options, whose jurisprudential outcomes, similar to other jurisprudential rules, are influenced by various perspectives about its extent of coverage. The findings of the present study reveal that there are three important theories on this issue: 1) the theory of limiting the rule to ‘ the option of condition’ and ‘ the option of animals’ , which is the basis of Article 453 of the Iranian Civil Code; 2) the theory of limiting the rule to ‘ the option of meeting place’ ; and 3) the theory of generalizing the rule to all kinds of ‘ options’ . Examining these theories critically, the present article has favored the third theory as the criterion for the liability for any damage to or defect on what is sold / bought is expiry and non-expiry of the condition intended for the contract of sale such that if the stipulated time extends, the surety resulting from the unwanted occurrence of any defect on what is sold / bought will be passed to the seller and in case of the establishment and stability of the contract of sale for the customer, it will be passed to the customer in all options.

A bona fide purchaser who is unaware of the usurped nature of the property may suffer substantial losses if traditional rules of usurpation are strictly applied. This issue becomes particularly critical when the purchaser has constructed improvements on the land. In such cases, if the landowner insists on the demolition of the structures and the resulting damages exceed the value of the land, judges seek solutions to reconcile the conflicting rights of both parties. Some of these solutions are reflected in judicial rulings. One such approach is the ruling on “involuntary co-ownership” of the land and improvements by both owners. This ruling is primarily based on economic considerations and aims to prevent excessive harm to the bona fide purchaser. In this study, through a descriptive and analytical approach and using a library-based research method, we critically examine Judgment No. 9909970221502339, dated 1399/10/27 (January 16, 2021), issued by Branch 15 of the Court of Appeal of Tehran Province. This judgment, which is based on the doctrine of “involuntary co-ownership” between the landowner and the owner of improvements, introduces a novel perspective on the legal consequences of usurpation and subsequent acts of possession and examines the challenges faced by the legal and judicial community of the country in this regard. Given the explicit views of Imami jurists and Iranian legal texts regarding usurpation, as well as the necessity of maintaining social order, issuing a ruling on “involuntary co-ownership” between the landowner and the usurper remains highly contentious. Therefore, ultimately, a judgment based on the Institution of “Waste in law” (talaf-e hokmi)—which has also been endorsed in certain judicial rulings—appears to be the more justified legal solution.