نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The alleged abuse or wastage by the trustee raises the question of whether trust should continue when the trustee has violated his duty. To allow the trustee to benefit further from the fruits of responsibility and trust, despite his breach, would not be justifiable. Therefore, when the trustee has infringed upon or wasted the trust property, denying him the civil privilege of obligation of trust and transferring the property is legitimate and justified. However, the question arises as to whether, if the trustee repents his wrongdoing, compensates for the loss, and seeks once again to hold the trust property, the rule of civil punishment should still apply to him or whether he may be trusted again. According to the law, the Civil Code does not provide an explicit answer to this question, nor does it discuss the status of the trustee after fault. In terms of jurisprudence, scholars have expressed various opinions on this issue. In a conventional classification, their views may be summarized as follows: one group rejects the possibility of returning the trust, another accepts it, and a third adopts a middle position—allowing return to trust in certain cases depending on the nature and severity of the fault. This paper attempts to analyze these opinions and propose an innovative division, offering a more balanced approach, particularly in cases where the trustee has reached the apex of fault and seeks reinstatement of trust.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
