Legal Maxim
Legal Maxim 91: “A person is bound by his own admission”
The meaning of this maxim is that a person who makes an admission is indicted pursuant to his acknowledgement and what he has acknowledge shall be claimed from him as long as the acknowledgement conforms to its conditions of validity. This statement can be simplified by saying that the person is responsible for what he say as long as it follows the condition of validity.
The condition of validity is for the person making the admission and the subject of admission. The condition of validity for the person making the admission is that he or she must be rational, sane, matured, and willing and not accused in his admission. Therefore, if the person making the admission is irrational, insane, not yet matured or was accused for admitting the statement, due to anyone of these reason, his admission is not considered validity. Thus his admission is not hold responsible to him or her.
The condition of validity for the subject matter is that the subject of the admission shall be something that is not impossible either by rational or by law. The admission is impossible by rational implies to the statement to be logical. For example, if somebody accuses a person to have taken a loan from him in February 2013, when it is obvious that person is already dead in that date. Thus this accusation is considered illogical or senseless therefore is cannot be considered as a valid admission.
Secondly, the admission is impossible by law implies that the admission must not be contradicting the Shariah law. This can be explained by the example of inheritance. In Shariah we have known that according to the rule of Fara’id, the son will receive 2:1 ratio of inheritance from the father’s wealth against the daughter. However, the father has written a will stating that the wealth shall be inherits equally between his son and daughter. Because the will is contradicting to the Shariah principles, it is considered invalid as it is
The meaning of this maxim is that a person who makes an admission is indicted pursuant to his acknowledgement and what he has acknowledge shall be claimed from him as long as the acknowledgement conforms to its conditions of validity. This statement can be simplified by saying that the person is responsible for what he say as long as it follows the condition of validity.
The condition of validity is for the person making the admission and the subject of admission. The condition of validity for the person making the admission is that he or she must be rational, sane, matured, and willing and not accused in his admission. Therefore, if the person making the admission is irrational, insane, not yet matured or was accused for admitting the statement, due to anyone of these reason, his admission is not considered validity. Thus his admission is not hold responsible to him or her.
The condition of validity for the subject matter is that the subject of the admission shall be something that is not impossible either by rational or by law. The admission is impossible by rational implies to the statement to be logical. For example, if somebody accuses a person to have taken a loan from him in February 2013, when it is obvious that person is already dead in that date. Thus this accusation is considered illogical or senseless therefore is cannot be considered as a valid admission.
Secondly, the admission is impossible by law implies that the admission must not be contradicting the Shariah law. This can be explained by the example of inheritance. In Shariah we have known that according to the rule of Fara’id, the son will receive 2:1 ratio of inheritance from the father’s wealth against the daughter. However, the father has written a will stating that the wealth shall be inherits equally between his son and daughter. Because the will is contradicting to the Shariah principles, it is considered invalid as it is