Ruling 2134. The right to annul a transaction is referred to as a khiyār (option). A buyer or a seller can annul a transaction in one of the following eleven cases:

1. when the buyer and the seller have not departed from each other, even though they may have left the meeting place of the transaction. This option is known as ‘the option while meeting’ (khiyār al‑majlis);

2. when either the buyer or the seller in the case of a sale, or one of the two parties of a transaction in the case of other transactions, has been cheated. This is referred to as ‘the option due to cheating’ (khiyār al‑ghabn). The establishment of this type of option stems from something that is rooted in common custom, namely, that in every transaction each party in the transaction has in his mind that the property he receives should not be drastically lower in value than the property he gives in return; and if it is drastically lower, he should have the right to annul the transaction. However, in the event that in some cases something else is rooted in a particular custom – for example, if someone receives a property that is lower in value than the property he gives in return, he can claim the difference between the two from the other party, and if this is not possible he can annul the transaction – then in such cases, that particular custom must be observed;

3. when the parties stipulate in the contract that either one of them or both of them can annul the transaction within a specified period. This option is referred to as ‘the option due to a stipulated condition’ (khiyār al‑sharṭ);

4. when one of the parties of the transaction displays his property in a way that it looks better than it truly is, and this makes the other party desirous of it or increases his desire for it. This is referred to as ‘the option due to deceit’ (khiyār al‑tadlīs);

5. when one of the parties of the transaction makes a condition with the other that he will do something, but he does not fulfil that condition; or, he makes it a condition that the specified property which is to be given by the other party must be of a special type but he discovers that it is not of that type. In these cases, the person who makes the condition can annul the transaction. This is known as ‘the option due to a breach of condition’ (khiyār takhalluf al‑sharṭ);

6. when there is a defect in the commodity or the payment exchanged for it. This is referred to as ‘the option due to a defect’ (khiyār al‑ʿayb);

7. when it is later discovered that part of the commodity that was transacted belonged to someone else. In this case, if the owner does not consent to the transaction, the receiver of the commodity can annul the transaction or take back what he paid in exchange for it if he had already paid for it. This is referred to as ‘the option due to a partnership’ (khiyār al‑shirkah);

8. when the owner describes to the other party the particulars of a specific commodity which the other party has not seen, and it is later discovered that the commodity is not as it was described; or, the other party had previously seen the commodity and thought that it still possessed the qualities he had seen in the past, and it is later discovered that it no longer has those qualities. In this case, the other party can annul the transaction. This is referred to as ‘the option pertaining to seeing’ (khiyār al‑ruʾyah);

9. when the buyer fails to hand over the payment for the commodity he purchased within three days, and the seller has not yet handed over the commodity. In this case, the seller can annul the transaction. This applies when the seller gives the buyer a respite for paying the money but does not specify the period. However, if he does not give him any respite at all, he can annul the transaction after a short delay in paying the money. If he gives a respite of more than three days, he cannot annul the transaction until the respite period is over. Furthermore, if the commodity he sold is something like vegetables or fruit which deteriorates before three days, the respite period is less. This option is referred to as ‘the option due to delay’ (khiyār al‑taʾkhīr);

10. when a person purchases an animal, he can annul the transaction within three days. If he acquires an animal in exchange for something that he sells, the seller can annul the transaction within three days of the sale. This is referred to as ‘the option pertaining to animals’ (khiyār al‑ḥayawān);

11. when the seller is unable to hand over the commodity he sold; for example, the horse that he sold runs away. In this case, the buyer can annul the transaction. This is referred to as ‘the option due to an inability to hand over’ (khiyār taʿadhdhur al‑taslīm).

Ruling 2135. If the buyer does not know the price of the commodity or is unmindful of it at the time of the transaction and buys it for a price that is higher than its normal price, then in the event that he buys it for a significantly inflated price, he can annul the transaction. Of course, this is on condition that he is still being cheated at the time of annulling the transaction; otherwise, the right to annul is problematic [i.e. based on obligatory precaution, he does not have the right to annul]. Similarly, if the seller does not know the commodity’s price or is unmindful of it at the time of the transaction and sells it for a price that is lower than its normal price, then, in case he sells it for a significantly deflated price, he can annul the transaction on the same condition mentioned previously.

Ruling 2136. In a transaction involving a conditional sale, wherein, for example, a house worth £100,000 is sold for £50,000 with an agreement that if the seller returns the money within a stipulated period he can annul the transaction, the transaction is valid provided the buyer and the seller have a genuine intention to buy and sell.

Ruling 2137. In a transaction involving a conditional sale, even if the seller is confident that should he fail to return the money within the stipulated period the buyer will give him the property, the transaction is valid. However, if he fails to return the money within the stipulated period, he does not have the right to claim the property from the buyer. Furthermore, if the buyer dies, he cannot claim the property from his inheritors.

Ruling 2138. If a person mixes high-grade tea with low-grade tea and sells it under the label of high-grade tea, the buyer can annul the transaction.

Ruling 2139. If a buyer realises that a specified item has a defect – for example, he buys an animal and realises that it is blind in one eye – then, in the event that the defect was present in the item before the transaction and the buyer did not know about it, he can annul the transaction and return the item to the seller. In the event that returning the item is not possible – for instance, the item has changed in some way; for example, it has become defective; or, it has been utilised in a manner that prevents it from being returned; for example, the buyer sold it or hired it out; or, [the item was a piece of cloth and] the buyer cut the cloth or stitched it – then in such cases, the difference in price between a non-defective and defective item must be determined, and in proportion to the difference between the two, the buyer can take back part of the money he paid to the seller. For example, if he realises that an item he bought for £4 is defective, in the event that the price of a non-defective item is £8 and a defective one is £6, then since the difference in price between the non-defective item and the defective one is 25%, he can take back 25% of the money he paid to the seller, that is, £1.

Ruling 2140. If a seller realises that there is a defect in the specified payment of exchange for the item that he sold, in the event that the defect was present before the transaction and he did not know about it, he can annul the transaction and return the payment of exchange to its owner. In the event that he is unable to return it due to a change in it or it having been utilised, he can claim back the difference in price between a non-defective and a defective item as per the instructions mentioned in the previous ruling.

Ruling 2141. If a defect is discovered in an item after the transaction but before it is handed over, the buyer can annul the transaction. Also, if a defect is discovered in the payment of exchange for the item after the transaction but before it is handed over, the seller can annul the transaction. And if they wish to take the difference in price, this is permitted if returning the item is not possible.

Ruling 2142. If after a transaction a person realises that the item has a defect, in the event that he wishes to annul the transaction, he must do so immediately. If he delays in annulling for more than a normal amount of time – taking into account the type of case it is – he cannot annul the transaction.

Ruling 2143. If at any time after buying a commodity a person realises that it has a defect, he can annul the transaction even if the seller is not prepared to accept it. The same rule applies to the other options for annulling a transaction.

Ruling 2144.* In the following four cases, a buyer cannot annul a transaction due to a defect in the item nor claim the difference in price:

1. before buying, he knows about the defect in the item;

2. after buying, he accepts the defect;

3. at the time of the sale, he waives his right to annul and take the difference in price;

4. at the time of the transaction, the seller says, ‘I am selling this item with all the defects it has’. However, if he specifies a particular defect and says, ‘I am selling this item with this defect’, and later another defect is discovered, the buyer can return the item owing to the defect that the seller did not specify. And in case he cannot return it, he can claim the difference in price.

Ruling 2145. If a buyer realises that an item has a defect and after taking possession of the item another defect is discovered, he cannot annul the transaction. However, he can claim the difference in price between a non-defective item and a defective one. But if he buys a defective animal and discovers another defect before the passage of time for the option with animals, which is three days,[1] he can return it even if he has taken possession of the animal. Also, if [in a particular transaction] only the buyer has the right to annul the transaction until a particular period and during that period another defect is discovered, he can annul the transaction even though he has taken possession of the item.

Ruling 2146. If a person has an item that he has not seen and its particulars are described to him by another person, in the event that he describes the same particulars to a buyer and sells it to him, and after the sale he realises that it was in fact better than what he had described, he can annul the transaction.