Authors
Abstract
Abstract
In the recent decades, the discussion of ""fungibles" and "non-fungibles" while standing for surety and meeting one's responsibilities and financial liabilities and taking the currency depreciation into consideration has been one of the most challenging jurisprudential debates. Both of the proponents and opponents of the theory of compensation have resorted to the very element. And due to their difference in foundations of reasoning they however referring to one specific element drew fully different conclusions. The presented theories can be set up under five important notions whereas we have chosen the theory that the currency is to be dealt with as fungibles in regard to its real value. In accordance with the preferred theory and in order to compensate the real worth of money we have to study it in the three following cases: A: changes occur along with the reaction of the custom (In this case the common law believes that when one receives loans and then repays his debt, the value of money differs in these two times, So he cannot arrange a logical and rational relation between the values of the money at these two times). B: changes come without reaction form the custom side. C: changes take place without having a clear picture of the reaction or non-reaction of the custom. The conclusion we have drawn is the permissibility and necessity of compensation of the real value of money in the first case andin the second case the same genus commodity or amount based on the nominal prices has to be given. In the third case there is no need for paying extra amount to "fungible" commodity or amount though to compromise suits best with precaution.
Keywords
)