Related To Loss Of Property Rented

CR (418) The rented property is the owner's property in the trust of the tenant, who is not responsible if it is destroyed or is made defective without any negligence on the part of the tenant. If the renting party sets a condition that the tenant is responsible to pay or compensate if the property is destroyed or is made defective it is valid. But holding of the tenant responsible for the price or kind, apparently, such condition is not valid. In the same way, the case of void renting contract, one is not responsible if the property is destroyed or is made defective.

CR (419) If ones property is destroyed or is made defective while with the workman, the latter is not responsible for it unless it is due to his negligence or trespassing.

CR (420) If the landlord or the renting person sets a condition in the contract whereby the other party is held responsible to pay or compensate for the property if destroyed or made defective, such condition is effective.

CR (421) If the rented premises is destroyed or a third party has done it before the tenant starts any work or during the term before a time within which the tenant can complete his work, the contract is void and the rent paid is refunded to tenant the whole rent or partially as the case maybe.

CR (422) If the tenant it is like his taking charge of the property and the landlord destroys the property must receive the whole rent.

CR (423) If the landlord destroys the property, the tenant has the choice to annul or approve the contract and in the latter case he may also demand for his losses.

CR (424) One's cost is the cost of the time of becoming liable.

CR (425) If a workman, a professional, a technician or a physician, etc., undertakes a work or a job and in his hand the job is damaged or destroyed he is responsible for the damage and the loss. This is when the worker exceeds the limit permitted by the other party, but if he has not exceeded the limit permitted and agreed to by the owner or the patient, etc., his being responsible is not free from objection, although according to a more clear reason he is not responsible, for example, a physician personally undertakes treatment, if the patient is harmed, he (the physician) is responsible for the damage as said just above but if he only gives opinion and diagnoses of the problem, apparently, he is not responsible.

CR (426) If a physician offers his services, provided, he is not held responsible and the patient or his guardian agrees and the physician's performance is free of negligence in such case, he is not responsible, even though he personally undertakes treatment.

CR (427) If a party, for example, carries someone luggage and it falls off and is damaged, he is responsible only when he walks negligently, otherwise, he is not responsible, and the same CR applies if the luggage falls on someone else's property and causes damage.

CR (428) If the owner asks the workman to use some material for a job only if the material is sufficient and proper, but the worker cuts the material or uses it and it happens to be not enough and proper. The worker is responsible, but if he is told, use the material only if it is enough for the job and the worker says yes, it is enough, and uses it but it happens to be not enough, apparently, he is not responsible if the worker happens to be wrong in his opinion.

CR (430) If someone rents his animal to carry someone load and the animal slips and the load is destroyed or damaged, the owner is not responsible, unless he causes it by disturbing the animal. If some other person causes the loss, he is held responsible.

CR (431) If one rents a boat or an animal to carry loads, and the load is damaged or lost, the owner is not responsible, but he is held responsible if he is committed to such responsibilities and has made a condition to pay or compensate.

CR (432) - If one loads an animal or a machine rented more than the agreed load, or more than commonly practiced and it destroys the carrier or damages it, he is held responsible for the loss, the fair market cost of extra load besides the specified rent. The same CR applies if the carrier is used for an extra distance.

CR (433) If one hires a carrier to carry certain loads to a certain distance, but instead he rides it or vice verse, he must pay the specified rent and the rent of the benefit received according to the fair market value. The same CR applies whenever the acquired benefit is different from the specified benefit in the contract, regardless, if it's a piece of property or a certain amount of work.

CR (434) If one is hired for a certain job and he on purpose or because of mistake does something other than what he is hired to do, he is not entitled for any pay.

CR (435) If one hires a carrier to carry a load for "A" but he carries a load for "B" he is neither entitled to receive any payment from neither "A" nor "B".

CR (436) If one hires a carrier to ride to a certain distance, but knowingly or by mistake uses another carrier; he must pay the specified rent for the specified carrier and fair market value to the second carrier. But if by mistake he uses someone else's carrier, he pays fair market value fare to this and the specified fare to the one he had hired in the first place.

CR (437) If one hires a ship to transport vinegar to a certain distance but he loads wine and the vinegar already specified. The owner of the ship must receive the specified rent and the fair market value rent because of wine, supposing to carry it would be lawful.

CR (438), One who hires an animal to ride or to carry load, it is lawful for him to make the animal move by beating or stirring to the common practice limit, unless the owner forbids even such common practice also. If he exceeds the common practice limit or does against the wishes of the owner he is responsible for the damage and loss; but if such practice is lawful he is not responsible for any loss according to a strong reason.

CR (439) The owner of such public places like a club, etc. is not held responsible for ones clothes or other personal belongings if lost, unless, it is kept in his trust of which he has assumed responsibility or it is because of his negligence.

CR (440) If one is hired as security-guard to watch someone property and it is stolen, the guard is not held responsible unless it is due to his negligence and shortcoming. Apparently, if the guard is overcome by sleep it is not considered negligence. However, if it is agreed in the contract that the guard pays the cost if the property is lost, he must stand by his promise, but in both cases the guard does not deserve any pay.

CR (441) It only is necessary for the owner to hand over the rented property to the other party if benefiting is not possible without being given to him like as in the case of professional tools or there is such condition for it in the contract, otherwise, it is not necessary as in the case of a rented ship for transportation.

CR (442) For validity of renting contract it is enough that the owner is the owner of the intended benefits of the property even if he does not own the property. If one rents a house, he can rent it to someone else, even though he may not be the owner of the house. If benefiting from the property depends on one's handing it over to the party, the second renting party must hand it over to the tenant even if the owner may not agree to it. If benefiting depends upon handing over, it is necessary for him owner of benefits - to hand it over to his tenant, even if the owner would not allow it. If benefiting from the property does not depend on handing it over to the party, like a ship, it is not necessary for the first renting party to hand it over to the second tenant unless a condition calls for handing it over. It is not lawful for the second renting party to hand it over to the first tenant even if a condition calls for it; in fact, such condition is not valid. If the owner agrees he can hand it over to the first tenant, also in the previous case in which it is necessary for the second tenant to hand it over to the first tenant, handing over is not lawful unless the first tenant is trustworthy, otherwise, if it is given to him the second tenant is held responsible. This is when the contract is unrestricted, but if the contract is restricted like being an animal for a specified person to ride, it is not lawful to rent it to another person, if it is done the contract is void and if the second party rides, knowing that his contract is void he has committed an offense, and he owes to the owner the fair market value fare for the benefit he has achieved and also he owes the fair market value fare to the first tenant for the benefit he has lost. If he did not know the case but the first tenant knew it he demands from the first tenant what he has paid as compensation to the owner.

CR (443) If, an animal for transportation is hired with a condition that only "A" personally benefits or must not hire it to another person but he gives it to 'B' for some money, it is said that it makes the contract void, and if "B" acquires any benefits "A" not the owner receives market rent because of the loss of expected benefits, according to a more clear reason the contract is valid, the owner has the choice to annul the deal and demand 'A' to pay market rent.

If one rents a shop, when the lease expires he must make it available for the owner and it is not lawful to rent it to someone else without the permission of the owner. It also is not lawful to make it available for someone in exchange for money if such money is not a condition in the contract unless the owner agrees. If the tenant dies it is not lawful for his heirs to make the property available to someone else in exchange for a certain amount of money, unless the owner agrees, if the owner agrees it is not necessary to exclude one third of the rent as part of the whole legacy even if the deceased may have said in his will, unless such exclusion is a condition for the owners agreeing to the deal.

CR (445) If the tenant sets a condition in the contract or through another binding contract which gives him the right to make it available to someone else in exchange for some money and the owner agrees the tenant can lawfully do so and if he dies this right is transferred to his heirs and it becomes necessary to exclude one third of such benefits if the deceased only has asked for one third of his property to be spent for a certain cause. When the tenant has the right he receives such money even without the owner's permission and if such money is of trade benefits it becomes necessary to pay 20% as khums out of its value which may decrease, increase or remain the same.

CR (446) If a condition does not require the tenant to personally use the property it is lawful for him to rent it to someone for less or equal to the rent he pays or more if he has made some improvements in the property or the substance of rent is different from that of rent he pays to the owner, even if they are not of such substance except a house, shop and workman, it is unlawful to rent for more than what he has rented, and for precaution, ships are also dealt with like houses, shops and workman. Also according to such view the same CR applies to mills and land, even though according to a strong view it is lawful in the two latter cases, but it is detestable.

CR (447) Houses, shops and for precaution also ships must not be subleased for more than the agreed rent with owner without any improvement work in it, but for less there is no objection. According to a strong reason subleasing for the same rent is lawful.

CR (448) If one hires himself for a certain work without any condition of personally doing the work or other such indicators, he is allowed to hire someone else for the work, for the same pay or more but not for less unless he has done some of the work, even just a little or that the payment is made with a different kind of property.

CR (449) When it is necessary for the worker to have the substance, on which he works, in his hands and if it is lawful for him to hire someone else, he can give it to the second person just like the case of a property rented to a second person by the first tenant.