The Foundation of the Disruption of the Principle of Contractual Binding (Asālat al-Luzūm) in the Assumed Absence of Conventional Equilibrium of Considerations in Iranian Law and Islamic Jurisprudence

Abstract

The principle of contractual binding and the non-dissolution of contracts—referred to as Asālat al-Luzūm—is among the general principles governing all contracts, and it remains effective except in cases where it has been specifically limited by the legislator. One of the notable exceptions to this principle, which leads to the instability of contracts, is the disturbance in the balance of the value of mutual considerations (ʿiwaḍayn). The question of what constitutes the rationale and foundation for deviation from the principle of binding force of contracts, in cases where the equivalence of considerations is absent, remains unanswered with precision and comprehensiveness despite its significant importance and profound implications in resolving contractual disputes. The prevention of unjust harm (nafy al-ḍarar al-nārwā) and the negation of coercion (nafy al-ikrāh) are among the well-known bases advanced by most Imami jurists and legal scholars to justify the removal of contractual binding in such cases. In the jurisprudence of Sunni schools, those who have recognized the option of ghabn (option of lesion) as a legitimate basis have either failed to specify a theoretical foundation for it or have relied on the aforementioned principles. In the present study, the authors critically examine the above-mentioned views, refuting each with reasoned arguments, and propose their own perspective grounded in the principle of "implied will and consent" (irādah wa tarāḍī ḍimnī), elaborating and clarifying its conceptual framework.