The axiom has been introduced in jurisprudence as a means of superiority in taking advantage of things and public and permissible places. The axiom conveys the idea that should anyone preempt others in taking advantage of primarily or commonly permitted rights s/he would be more deserving in respect to the others who cannot interfere with his use of them. A glance at the jurisprudential documents of the axiom with the consideration of the general conducts and narratives makes it clear that the legal nature of preemptive right is a unilateral legal act based on intention that is so-called as unilateral act of valid consequences. The Shiite and Sunni jurisprudents grant this right to a precedent person and it is apparently not amongst the canonical installations rather it is something more of an intellectual nature that has even existed before canonization that has not only rejected and denied it but it has also endorsed it. So, it can be stated that of jurisprudents claim that they have reached consensus over this idea, it should not be considered as canonical rules rather it is a general agreement reached by them by virtue of intellect. A person who sits in a bazar with no intention for earning money has no preemptive right. The court acts based on the appearance of the things in regard of the disputes and disagreements on the existence of the enjoyment right. The evidences and judicial circumstances are here intended by appearance. For example, an individual’s sitting in a public bazar while having certain objects in the hand apparently implies the enjoyment intention for earning money and sitting in the mosque apparently signifies the enjoyment intention for the prayers.
