Impact of Fundamental Differences in Authorization of Different Fatwas by Jurists in Some Rules on Option of Lesion and Defect based on Imam Khomeini’s Viewpoints

 The scholars’ differences in opinion on religious law fundamentals and their approaches toward the practical principles such as authorization or istishab are among the major and decisive factors in issuing different Fatwas (nonbinding legal opinion on a point of Islamic law (sharia)) in various jurisprudential aspects. This paper has reviewed and analyzed the effects of fundamental differences in authorization of different Fatwas by jurists in some rules on option of lesion and defect based on Imam Khomeini’s views. The paper has proven that the differences in opinion of the scholars in terms of authorization are not merely theoretical and they have led to fundamental differences in their Fatwas in practice as well. For instance, the difference of opinion in sustainability of the option of lesion for the defrauded person in case of paying the balance by the deceiver comes from the difference of opinion in legal presumption of continuity of the status quo in doubtful case. Based on the views of some jurists such as Imam Khomeini, who confirms legal presumption of continuity of the status quo in doubtful case, in this case the principle of option will be valid. Also the difference of opinion in urgency of option of lesion is due to the dispute on priority of the principle of authorization over the principle of bindingness. As in the case of option of defect, despite difference of opinion on the disputes between the transaction parties at the time of the discovery of defect on the object of sale, the guaranty or non-guaranty of the vendor has its roots in the difference on non-existent authorization.