عنوان مقاله [English]
During amending the Civil Code in 1361 by the Judicial and Legal Committee of Parliament, the article 1209 was repealed and article 1210 was amended. This repeal and amendment was ratified by Parliament in 1370. As a result, the age of 18, as evidence of prudence, was abrogated. The contradiction between the main part of amended article 1210 and its note 2 that created conflict in the delivery of judgments by the courts, was resolved by Judgment no. 30 of the Plenary Assembly of the Supreme Court in 1364; but the absence of a certain age as evidence of prudence was not remedied. This paper criticizes the legal lacuna relating to the age of prudence, and by referring to a number of reasons including the delivery of conflicting judgments by the courts, the existence of conflict in statutory provisions, harmfulness of the absence of the presumptive of prudence, specifying the age of prudence in some Islamic sources as well as scientific reasons, concludes that age determination, preferably age 18, is essential as the presumptive of prudence. So, the reason that the legal system as well as people has not faced a serious problem since the abrogation of the age of prudence in 1361, is that governmental departments and the courts still enforce the abrogated laws in this respect.