عدم‌النفع

Lucrum Cessans

در فقه اماميه درباره ماليت‌داشتن منافع و ضرر محسوب‌شدن عدم‌النفع، اختلاف نظر وجود دارد و شايد به تبع همين اختلاف، در قوانين كنوني نيز تعارض نظر قانونگذار درباره اين مسيله ديده مي‌شود. به نظر مي‌رسد چون عرف براي منافع، ماليت قايل است، مي‌توان براساس نظر صحيح‌تر فقهي مبتني بر قاعده لاضرر و سيره قطعي عقلا، عدم‌النفع مسلّم و قطعي را ضرر دانست و معتقد بود قوانيني كه عدم‌النفع را مضمونه و قابل مطالبه نمي‌دانند، به عدم‌النفع محتمل‌الحصول نظر دارند؛ ولي قوانيني كه آن را قابل مطالبه مي‌دانند، به عدم‌النفع مسلّم‌الحصول نظر دارند.

There are some differences in opinions concerning possessory value of profits and considering loss of anticipatory profit as a true loss; and, perhaps because of these very differences, conflicts are seen in opinions stated by the legislator. Since, in the convention and customary law, profits are taken as having some possessory value, it seems that, based on the more correct juridical rule of "Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas" as well as the certain tradition of the wise, loss of anticipatory profit may be deemed as certain loss. It may be thought that laws according to which loss of anticipatory profit is not guaranteed and demandable are referring to the losses of anticipatory profit which may be acquired; those laws which take it as being demandable, however, are referring to losses of anticipatory profit which may be certainly acquired.