An investigation into the basics of jurisprudential arguments of the theory of «required obligation» and its legal effects

Jurists have different opinion about the nature and concept of a contract; but it can be found that most of them agree on the fact that realization of the contract requires elements such as will, intent, consent, requirement and accepting and without such elements, they consider the contract as missing the title of the contract or invalid; or at least they believe in lack of influence and lack of arrangement of its legal effects. Among these elements, “requirement and accepting” have prominent roles in the formation of contracts and it means that as long as the causing will does not link with the accepting will, the realization of a contract is obviated. Among the contemporary jurisprudential views, there is a different theory from such a famous view that says all the nature and identity of a contract is due to obligation and the accepting will has only the role of validating the causing will. The theory can be a way of proving the theory of required obligation, in the words of some contemporary jurists and lawyers, and it seems that the only owner of it is Imam Khomeini (Peace be upon him) and later the commentators of his ideas. Reviewing the basics and arguments of the theory has special legal effects and requirements which studying them is the focus of the investigation.