عنوان مقاله [English]
The objective examples of two contradictory rules could be seen in so many instances and clarifies the investigation of the metrics for identifying the most important ones which have not been examined closely. The present paper has focused on the status of using lots among the metrics of preference in the contradiction issue. To be noted that, the one who is charge of deducing the most significant looks for the criteria for preferring a rule to the others and by resorting to the rationality, he refracts the metrics of preference so that he could conclude or see it likely to rule against or for one of the contradictors. Having stated the types of contradiction and using lots rules, this paper is to analyze and investigate jurisprudential examples in this regard and discusses the conditions of using lots in different categorizations of contradiction. According to the authors, the applicability of lots given the indications and practical principles are met should be taken into account, while the definite and probable metrics are (un)balanced due to the contradiction of different rights. With respect to two instances of contradiction from the viewpoint of preference, it is acceptable in criterion-based contradiction while in complying contradiction, if the metrics are absent or unbalanced and practical principles are not referable, resorting to the lots is sound, although in most cases optional priority is prioritized to the obligatory ones.