Analyzing the Transfer of Property from Ownership as a Barrier to Rescission in Voidable Contracts under the Afghan Legal System
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Context and Aim: A voidable contract is fundamentally valid but flawed in specific aspects. When the buyer takes possession with the seller's consent, it triggers certain legal consequences. This study seeks to shed light on the challenges associated with the annulment of such contracts, particularly issues surrounding the transfer of ownership away from the buyer. Additionally, it aims to address the apparent contradictions within Article 632 of Afghanistan’s Civil Code concerning the seller’s right to reclaim property from third parties.
Methodology: This descriptive‑analytical study used content analysis and a comparative documentary approach based on qualitative data. Data were collected through library research and by reviewing relevant legal documents from Afghanistan’s legal system.
Findings: In Afghan jurisprudence and law, several obstacles prevent the annulment of a voidable contract. These include the destruction of the property while in the buyer’s possession, the transfer of the property out of the buyer’s ownership, or significant alterations to the property. Any of these conditions nullifies the contract's annullable status. Among these, the most significant obstacle is the transfer of property from the buyer to a third party. A noteworthy issue arises with Article 632, which grants the seller the right to take direct action against the third-party recipient. This provision appears contradictory to the principle that a voidable contract loses its annullable nature once the property exits the buyer's ownership.
Conclusion: Based on the perspectives of legal scholars and the principles underpinning the Civil Code, Article 632 should be interpreted to mean that the seller's right to pursue recourse against a third party is forfeited once the property is no longer within the buyer’s ownership. Under such circumstances, the seller is entitled to claim only an equivalent asset if the property is fungible or its market value if it is non-fungible.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Alī Ḥaydar, Khwāja Amīn Zādah. (2002). Durar al-Ḥukkām fī Sharḥ Majallat al-Aḥkām (trans. Fahmī al-Ḥusaynī), Vol. 1. Beirut: n.p. [Arabic]
Al-Kāsānī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Abū Bakr ibn Masʿūd ibn Aḥmad. (1986). Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ fī Tartīb al-Sharāʾiʿ, Vols. 5 & 7. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. [Arabic]
Al-Nasafī, Abū al-Barakāt ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad. (2011). Kanz al-Daqāʾiq. Damascus: Dār al-Sirāj. [Arabic]
Al-Nasafī, Abū al-Barakāt ʿAbdullāh. (1997). Al-Baḥr al-Rāʾiq Sharḥ Kanz al-Daqāʾiq (fī Furūʿ al-Ḥanafiyyah), Vol. 6. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. [Arabic]
Al-Sanhūrī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq. (2007). Al-Wasīṭ fī Sharḥ al-Qānūn al-Madanī, Vols. 2 & 6. Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah. [Arabic]
Al-Sarakhsī, Shams al-Aʾimmah Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. (1993). Al-Mabsūṭ, Vol. 13. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah. [Arabic]
Al-Zuḥaylī, Wahbah. (2001). Al-Fiqh al-Islāmī wa Adillatuh, Vol. 4. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr. [Arabic]
Apaydın, Haci Yunus. (1995). “Fesad.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 12, pp. 417–421. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/fesad--fikih [In Turkish]
Aybakan, Bilal. (2000). “İkâle.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 22, p. 14. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/ikale [In Turkish]
Bilmen, Ömer Nasuhi. (1976). Hukuk-ı İslâmiyye ve İstilâhat-ı Fıkhıyye Kamusu, Vol. 6. Bilmen Yayınevi. [In Turkish]
Çeker, Orhan. (1994). Fıkıh Dersleri, Vol. 1. Seha Neşriyat. [In Turkish]
Civil Code of Afghanistan. (1976). [In Persian]
Hıra, Ayhan. (2017). “Hanefilerin fasit akit anlayışı ve fasit satım akdinin feshedilmesine engel olan durumlar.” İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29, 115–135. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ihad/issue/72111/1227848 [In Turkish]
Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Muḥammad Amīn. (2002). Radd al-Muḥtār ʿalā al-Durr al-Mukhtār, Vol. 7. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. [Arabic]
Ibn al-Humām, Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid. (2003). Fatḥ al-Qadīr, Vol. 6. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr. [Arabic]
Ibn Nujaym, Zayn al-Dīn ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad. (1999). Al-Ashbāh wa al-Naẓāʾir. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. [Arabic]
Ibn Nujaym, Zayn al-Dīn ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad. (n.d.). Al-Baḥr al-Rāʾiq Sharḥ Kanz al-Daqāʾiq, Vol. 6. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah. [Arabic]
Karaman, Hayreddin. (1987). Mukayeseli İslam Hukuku (Vol. 2). Nesil Yayınları. [In Turkish]
Karīmī-Niyā, Muḥammad Mahdī; Shujāʿī, ʿAlī Riḍā. (2021). “A Comparative Study of the Effects of Void and Defective Contracts in the Laws of Iran, Afghanistan, and France.” Comparative Law Research Journal of Justice and Fairness, Year 4, No. 12. http://www.aeclrjournal.ir/article_134452.html [In Persian]
Kaya, Ali. (2005). İslam Hukukunda Sebepsiz Zenginleşme. Emin Yayınları. [In Turkish]
Khusraw, Muḥammad ibn Farāmarz. (n.d.). Durar al-Ḥukkām Sharḥ Ghurar al-Aḥkām, Vol. 1. Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah. [Arabic]
Majallat al-Aḥkām al-ʿAdliyyah (Ottoman Civil Code). (1876). [Arabic]
Murteza, Ayşegül. (2019). Fesad kavramının akitler ve toplumsal yapı üzerindeki etkileri (Master’s thesis). Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf University, Institute of Graduate Studies. [In Turkish]
Pakır, Musa. (2018). İslam hukukunda akidlerin fesad ve butlanı (Master’s thesis). Erciyes University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Basic Islamic Sciences, Kayseri. [In Turkish]
Saifi, Ṣafā al-Raḥmān. (2019). “Invalid Contract (ʿAqd Fāsid).” Legal Awareness Monthly, Year 13, No. 196. [In Persian]
Shahābī, Mahdī; Afżalī, ʿAbd al-Wāḥid. (2015). “A Comparative Analysis of Void and Defective Contracts in the Civil Law of Iran and Afghanistan.” Quarterly Journal of Private Law Studies, University of Tehran, 45(4). https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_55684.html [In Persian]