Original Principle in Suspension Contracts in Terms of Necessity and Permission

Although the principle of necessity in all contracts has been stipulated in the article 219 of civil code, an examination of the principles and arguments shows that the acceptable evidence to prove the necessity does not include suspension contracts. For necessity, it has been relied upon both ijtihadi reasons included in the Quranic verses and Islamic narrations as well as the manners of the wise, and upon juridical reasons of partial istishab[1] and second type of the general istishab[2]. The use of the manners of wise and the second type of general istishab in the necessity principle is due to a misunderstanding of the necessity and permission nature. This research shows that the necessity and permission are neither concluded from the self-requirements of the contract (reason) nor the attributes of the ownership (cause), but it is a religious rule which is governing the contract (reason). However, there is no problem with using the ijtihadi reasons included in the general Quranic verses and Islamic narrations in the doubts concerning the presence of duty as well as the principle of partial istishab of the continuation of the ownership of the current owner in doubts concerning the presence of duty and partial objective doubts for proving the necessity. The more correct opinion is that the scope of the general flow indicating the principle of necessity and the principle of partial istishab does not include suspension contracts. If the situational law is abstracted from the positive law, this opinion will be valid and the necessity principle will not apply to suspended contracts.