“Jordanian Civil Law” and the “law of Financial Dealings” of theUnited Arab Emirates, have chosen to follow the Hanifite Doctrine and to adopt the concept of the “Vitiated contract” - “Al-Aqd Al- Fasid”. This concept has been highly commended by some modern legal writers: they underlined the dynamism of the theory of the “Vitiated Contract” and its ability to avoid the demolition of the contract for some defects which are note worthy of destroying the whole convention.
Through our research, we can affirm that the adoption of this theory has disrupted the legal ordering of the contract especially that part concerning the “vices of the consent”. In fact, while the “Error” and the “Lesion resulting from a fraud” were met by the theory of the “Non-obligatory contract”, the duress, after the Hanifites, was met by the theory of the “Suspended contract”, discricriminating, by this, between vices appertaining to the same legal nature.
Moreover, the adoption of the “vitiated contract”, has come against many rules in the two above - mentioned laws. This confusion must be noted and highlighted, hoping that the concerned legislators will find the way to remove, and to adopt a substitute to the “Vitiated contract”, a substitute which can be found, in our sense, in the generalization of the theory of the “Non-obligatory contract”.
"Must the Idea of a Vitiated Contract be Retained in the Jordanian Civil Code and the Emirati Civil Transactions Act?,"
Journal Sharia and Law: Vol. 2006
, Article 2.
Available at: https://scholarworks.uaeu.ac.ae/sharia_and_law/vol2006/iss28/2