When One Party Requires the Other to Bear Nonobligatory Expenses Related to the Conditional Contract: A “Fundamental Applied Study”

Abstract

The research consists of an introduction, in which the researcher defined the terms included in the title and what is meant by them. It was also comprised of three chapters and a conclusion.

The first chapter discussed the principles on which Shariah ruling on this issue was based, namely: the rule of conditions in the contract, and the rule of stipulating what contradicts the requirements of the contract.

As for the second chapter, it examined the ruling on one of the two contracting parties charging the other with nonobligatory expenses related to the conditional contract. The second chapter included three topics: the first topic is about the basis upon which the ruling on the issue was based, and the researcher suggested, in this respect, that the basis is that it is permissible, if this requirement does not contradict with Shariah principles. Whereas in the second topic, the researcher discussed prohibition controls which some argue that they provide the justification for voiding the requirement that one of the two contracting parties charges the other with nonobligatory expenses related to the contract, and these two causes are: usury and deception. As for the third topic, it investigated the obligations resulting from conditional contracting.

Moreover, in the third chapter of this research, the researcher shed light on the applications of the rule on charging one of the two contracting parties the other with nonobligatory expenses related to the conditional contract.

The research ended with the conclusion, which included the most important results and recommendations.