Contemplation over the Necessity of Knowledge in Transaction with a Legal-Jurisprudential Approach
Subject Areas : فصلنامه مطالعات میان رشته ای فقه
Fatemeh Mahdavi
1
(Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Islamic Azad University, Ghaemshahr, Iran)
Keywords: knowledge, motivation, Loss, transaction,
Abstract :
Human beings have different spirits and variegated wants and needs and they are constantly seeking to accomplish what they call their ideals with one of the scientific methods of doing so being implementable within the format of transactions. Therefore, when attention is paid to the transactions, it is seen that contracts and transactions serve various intentions; some intentions just look for profits such as when selling something and some others consider benevolence and charity such as when lending something; and, also, in some of the transactions, there is this possibility of sustaining losses such as in sales but there is no risk of sustaining loss in some others like trust. In some of the contracts, it is necessary for the contracting parties to have knowledge otherwise loss may be incurred following which a person may sustain a loss of a type and losing is intellectually and canonically detested and, resultantly, the contract can be revoked or compensation might be demanded etc. Of course, it is not necessary in some of the contracts for the contracting parties to have special knowledge such as in endowments and alms for the reason that these contracts are flexible in respect to the lack of knowledge and the subsequent losses. The present study uses a theoretical grounded theory method of research. It has been codified based on a descriptive-analytical method, as well. The study tries investigating perspectives of Imamiyyeh jurisprudents from the antecedent to the subsequent figures; Iranian jurists’ notions will be also examined along with it. The result is that it is necessary to have knowledge when entering a transaction of course, knowledge of various contracts is usually accompanied by different case-specific consequences. For example, it is necessary for a transacting party to have detailed knowledge without which the contract has.
_||_
