Non-Stipulation of Security from Loss in Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong

In legal works, the obligatoriness of commanding right and forbidding wrong has become restricted to stipulatory realization including “security against loss”. The jurists believe that commanding right and forbidding wrong has “a suspended and conditional obligatoriness” toward the stipulation of security from loss in such a way that when a depravity or loss follows commanding right and forbidding wrong, this obligatoriness does not have actuality and is voided. Having re-examined the issue, the writers consider the
evidences of the generally accepted view as violable despite its enjoyment of “great publicity”. Briefly put, the writers believe that commanding right and forbidding wrong as a legal obligation has “an absolute and non-suspended obligatoriness” toward qualified condition.