عقد صلح

In a broad classification, contracts are divided into two major categories: «commutative contracts» (ʿuqūd mughābana) , which are agreements founded on the contracting parties' mutual intent to ensure equivalence between the exchanged values, and «unbalanced contract» (ʿuqūd musāmuḥa) , which denote agreements where the parties' intent is not premised on establishing equilibrium between the reciprocal considerations. In unbalanced contracts, given that «tolerance» (tasāmuḥ) is exercised knowingly, they bring about distinct jurisprudential and legal effects. The primary effects can be observed in the suspension (or relaxation) of certain transactional rules: Among these, in unbalanced contracts, «detailed knowledge» of the exchanged values is not a prerequisite for the contract’s validity, as tolerance inherently permits settlement (ṣulḥ) involving uncertain matter. This stands in contrast to commutative contracts, in which such detailed knowledge of the exchanged values is not only mandatory but also a fundamental condition for the contract’s validity. Another effect of tolerance in contracts is its impact on the option of lesion (khiyār al-ghabn). Specifically, when the contracting parties knowingly exercise tolerance, aggrieved party (maghbūn) no longer retains the right to rescind the contract. In this study, employing an analytical-descriptive methodology and relying on library-based resources, we aim to comprehensively examine the aforementioned effect—an effect that has garnered significant attention from the majority of jurisprudential and legal scholars and has, moreover, been formally recognized by legislators. A thorough examination of scholarly opinions reveals that, while the majority of jurists consider tolerance in contracts as leading to the fall of option of lesion, a minority do not view such tolerance as inherently incompatible with the fall of this right. Some others have also distinguished between settlement contracts and other contracts, as well as the various types of settlement contracts; while others have made a difference between individual tolerance and objective tolerance. It appears that the latter view is reasonable and justified. Consequently, in objective tolerance, the option of lesion is absolutely applicable, whether the defect is significant or excessive. However, in individual tolerance, the aggrieved party only retains the option to rescind if an excessive lesion becomes evident.

Due to the wide scope of compromise contract, in addition to most nominate contracts, innominate contracts can be concluded with title of compromise contract. But is any agreement outside the nominate contracts necessarily considered to be compromise contract and does it not need to be intended as a compromise contract or its content and its nature to conclude it? Does compromise have its own particular content that must be intended like the other nominate contract, or is it characterized by not having a framework? Some jurists believe that the compromise contract has a concept equivalent to article 10 of civil law and notwithstanding the compromise contract which covers all innominate contracts, article 10 is not required. In addition to opposing the viewpoint of synonymy of compromise contract and innominate contracts with religious jurisprudence and civil law who regard compromise as having a specific content. For the following reasons this view cannot be accepted and compromise contract and innominate contracts must be considered two different concepts. Firstly: A type of agreement can be considered as compromise contract in which outcome of contract includes agreement, not every agreement out of nominate contract. Secondly: Compromise contract can be substitute of the nominate contracts, while innominate contracts cannot. Thirdly: Compromise contract is necessarily irrevocable contract and innominate contracts may be revocable contract. Fourthly: In compromise based on negligence, detailed knowledge is not required, but in innominate contracts, essential conditions, including detailed knowledge, are required. The only instance in which an innominate contract can be considered as compromise is one that denotes resolving or preventing conflict

The growth and development of societies and growth in human needs with development of communication which has resulted the genesis of a specific form of financial and commercial activities which do not face the preceding limitations and with a minimum funds provides to access the maxim profit from all over the world. CFD or a contract for differences is a transaction on the rising and falling of the asset’s value without delivery or transfer of the owning the underlying asset. This underlying asset can be stock indices, stocks or shares, commodities, bond. One of the most important and most basic is CFD trading on silver, gold, oil and gas. It is obvious that no legal and jurisprudential study has been conducted over this new trade. it will follow ambiguities such as usury, gamble and legal problems like ambiguity in the nature and the type of the contract specially our legal system has been codified based on Imamiyah fiqh. In this research firstly the position of CFD (contract for difference) on commodities have been considered. then it presents a appropriate legal form and strategies to overcome these legal and share'i (Arabic: شرعی) problems. With regard to the civil code and the possibility of the sacred lawgiver in concern to the principle of freedom of contract which has accepted. If the nature of these contracts is interpreted in the form of sulh contract. Not only it resolves the problem of inconsistency with the determined contracts but also the Islamic legal ambiguity have not been created at all.

Among the various contracts, the contract of settlement has this unique feature due to its vast territory That the result of other contracts and compromises between persons can be drawn in its form without the specific provisions of those contracts should be in force within this framework. contract of settlement is a broader format than all nominate contracts that is provided for the realization of the rule of will and the Civil law refers to this in Articles 754 and 758. On the other hand, Article 10 of civil law has established a principle called the principle of freedom of contract, which has given the rule of will a wide scope and removed it from the confines of nominate contracts. The legislator intends to enact Article 10 to validate transactions that, despite the needs of society, in terms of the effects desired by the parties, do not fit into any of the nominate contracts. There has always been disagreement among jurists as to whether, despite the contract of settlement, Article 10 of civil law which Is adapted 1134 french civil law , was necessary or not? According to Professor Jafari Langroudi,Despite the contract of settlement and Articles 752 and 754 civil law, borrowing the meaning of Article 10 from Western law is superfluous and it should not be said that the principle of free will as extensive as stated in Article 10 has no precedent in jurisprudence, because the consideration of various types of contract of settlement and its documents in jurisprudence, which at the same time shows the implied scope of the provisions of the Civil Code in a contract of settlement is a living proof to the contrary. The present article is responsible for explaining the relationship between these two legal institutions by emphasizing the views of Professor Jafari Langroudi.

Among the nominate contracts, the compromise has this unique characteristic that can provide the results of other contracts, without imposing specific rules of those contracts on it. The ambiguity in the meaning of compromise on the one hand and possibility of substituting compromise rather than other contracts on the other hand, make it difficult to distinguish the compromise agreement from a contract that compromise has been placed in its position. Thus the aim of this article is to answer two questions: first what is nature of compromise agreement? second which are the measures of qualification a contract to compromise when the compromise is substituted for the other nominate contracts? Substantively, the nature of compromise is nothing but mutual consent and whenever the parties use the title of compromise, , the contract must be considered as compromise and in the cases which they have not used this title, and the nature of the contract is disputed, , categorizing the contract of compromise is preferable provided that the circumstances reinforce such reading.

One of the major barriers to security in business activities is the issue of bankruptcy, for the prevention of which the governments use all capacities to protect their financial interests. In this way, the economic order in the business system is maintained, and trade barriers and trade relations are hindered. In the imāmiyya jurisprudence, institutions such as settlement of claim (ṣulḥ) have such a function that could be an appropriate response to this need, and its manifestation can be found in Iranian Civil Law in Article 722. It is also possible to mention the capacity of institutions such as waqf and zakāt. In this research, the mediation agency, which is reflected in Article 35 of the French Trade Law, will be compared with similar institutions in the field of jurisprudence, such as settlement of claim, etc., to determine if the institutions in Iran’s law can have such a function, and in case of the negative answer, what measures can be taken for the purpose of Article 35 of the French law.

The purpose of new financial tools design in the financial markets is to provide risk management and increase capital market efficiency. One of these tools is transaction choice contacts which should be based on legal measures because of contracts efficiency in stock exchange market. In this article, the authors define these contracts and present different viewpoints of Islamic scientist to determine their integrity and conform them with legal contracts. Finally, transaction choice integrity would be accepted.