ِWe see in some stores a sign saying “No exchange or return for sold merchandises’. Is this legally binding? Do these signs nullify any other factor such as time, defaults, etc­?

This sign is the same as the condition stipulated in a contract making any other factor invalid. Consequently, the sale process becomes definitive and binding where no second thoughts or other options are allowed. However, the validity of this sign remains dependant on the purchaser being able to read it because it is very likely that he might not take notice of it, or it could be even simpler as the purchaser being illiterate.

ِSome stores put in retail commodities confiscated by custom authorities. Is it lawful to buy these commodities?

ٌIn principle, these goods are unlawful to buy since the owner of which did not willfully or contentedly waive his right over them. If these owners were known or if it was possible to get to know them and obtain their approval or permission; then there would be no unlawfulness in buying these products. On the other hand, if these owners remained unknown; the bought commodities fall under the judgment concerning the unknown owner where there must be recourse to a legal authoritative opinion.

ِSome people visit car exhibition centers or other shopping centers asking for certain specifications they want in a car or in a certain commodity; and they actually promise sellers to buy the product they asked for once it becomes available. Is this promise considered legally binding?

ٌIf the promise included a request to actually import the product to the purchaser’s credit, so that the owner of the commercial enterprise becomes the purchaser’s authorized agent in the purchasing process, or if the issue took the form of a settled business deal; his promise becomes binding in the said case. As for when the situation is only about negotiating or chaffering including no transactional commitment; there would be no binding factor in such case speaking from a contractual perspective. For, indeed, no contract has been established between the two parties; there has been neither a procuration nor a business transaction. Still, it is preferable to keep one’s promise for the sake of being relieved from the burden one is bearing.

ِ Do copyrights have any material significance? Is printing allowed without obtaining the authorization of the writer or the publisher knowing that the latter spends a lot of money to get the writer’s approval in the early stages of the contract, let alone the money he spends on the preparation of the book?

ٌTaking into consideration the rights writers and publishers are entitled to, printing is not allowed without obtaining their permission. In its general meaning, a book has a financial consideration that differs from the common conviction that used to prevail in previous times. This old conviction stated that the financial value of a book lies in the original copy that the author possesses; and consequently, printing the copy possessed by the publishing house was not regarded as a violation of one’s intellectual properties because, according to the said view, this does not represent an infringement on the author’s property since he owns nothing but the copy in his possession. On the other hand, the new reasonable view considers that the financial value of a book lies in its qualitative aspect, which means that printing a book without a permission is a violation of the author’s or the publisher’s rights. So, whatever party perpetuates such doing is regarded as a thief, a usurper and a transgressor because the money it is dealing with belongs to a specified entity. Likewise, this judgment applies to all what wise people regard as carrying a financial value in their quality rather than their physical existence such as inventions and the like­

In fact, all of this sets from a very solid and fixed basis; that is, the financial value of money varies in accordance with the variation of the reasonable consideration which actually develops, in its way of perceiving things, in concordance with the development of economic situations that will, naturally, necessitate new considerations. Nothing actually tells us that we must stick to our old fashions in viewing affairs or situations, especially concerning the financial value of money because this particular issue changes and grows in harmony with the needs upon which considerations and views are based. Indeed, what has no financial value might acquire this characteristic such as paper money; and what has this value might lose it if the previous consideration ceases to be effective such as abolished currencies.

ِ Sometimes publishing houses print copies more than it is agreed upon with the author and sometimes they print more than one edition without obtaining the permission of the author; are they lawfully permitted to do such thing?

ٌ No, they are not because this represents a breach of the contract between the author and the publishing house on the one hand. And it is a violation of the author’s right to have his work published as he wishes on the other hand. That’s actually what we have been talking about when we said that the author does not simply own the original written or printed copy he has of his book, but he is rather in complete possession of his book and all the details of copying that this might include.

ِ Do authors enjoy the right of having their books printed in more than one publishing house at the same time, irrespective of whether these publishing houses are in different countries or not, and irrespective of whether the first agreement did include a stipulation against publishing or did not?

ٌIn his contracts with various publishers, an author must be clear as regards these details. If they had no problems or reservations, the contract is then deemed legal; but if the printing and publishing contract included a condition banning the publishing of the same material by another publishing house; in this case, the author is not allowed to have his book printed and published by any other publishing company based on the saying :”Believers respect the pledges they have undertaken”.

ِSome people entrust persons they know with their deposits. Is it lawful for the trustee to profit from entrusted deposits while guaranteeing that no misuse of them would be perpetrated?

ٌIf the owners of these deposits did not express their approval or give their permission, using these deposits is not allowed.

ِ Can depositors take the interests that banks give for deposited accounts, regardless of whether this is dictated as a specified condition or not?

ٌ Interests must not be imposed or stipulated as a condition for this becomes usury and the latter is more about loans rather than deposits. However, from the point of view of what one is commissioned to do and which one is punished and rewarded for in the Hereafter , interests arte unlawful as a condition.. However, regarding the issue from the practical angle concerning if this money is lawful to take or not; well, it is lawful as long as it is stipulated as a condition neither expressly nor tacitly “ because this would fall under the category of gifts. All the more so, this money can be deemed lawful if the bank’s administration was aware that it is giving the depositor or the creditor an interest that he is not legally entitled to. Another consideration makes these interests lawful; that is, if the bank’s settlement of these interests falls under its legal obligations which represent to the bank a kind of legal binding commitment. So, in the first status , the interest is deemed lawful under the consideration of donations and in the second status, it is lawful in view of the fact that each people are bound to comply with the commitments they have undertaken on themselves. And Allah knows best .

ِIn exchange operations (money transfer between two currencies), the transferred amount of money should be cashed instantaneously. Is it lawful that one or both parties receive the money as bill of exchanges or in form of financial obligations? Is it right that banks register receivables and payables in the accounts of customers without actually cashing any money because it is virtually collected?

ٌ The widespread agreed upon opinion amongst jurists, which nearly became a consensus, is that the rule of collecting money during exchange operations is restricted to golden and silver coins. Accordingly, the necessity of cashing money does not cover the validity of selling paper money since it is irrelevant to the subject of the rule which is mainly concerned with the selling of dirhams: silver coins in exchange for golden coins. On that account, paper money can be sold as bills of exchange or in form of financial obligations without the two parties receiving any money. It can also be collected in sale operations that take place in banks as the latter register receivables and payables in the accounts of customers without effectively cashing any money.

Nevertheless, according to Martyr Sayyed Al-Sadr, the question of paper money falls also under the obligatory precautionary measure and this involves the transferring of two equal prices or costs which means that the aspect taken into consideration in the process of exchange is the aspect of value such as happens, for example, when exchanging liras with dinars or dollars. On that account, we conclude that when the said rule took silver and golden dirhams and dinars to regulate their exchange; it did so only because they were the currency in circulation during that time and not because of their distinctive characteristic as dinars and dirhams, or else the validity of this rule would become null by the disappearance of these currencies. Hence, to be on the safe side and to protect oneself against any possible undesirable transgression, it is necessary to verify the validity of the operation of exchanging paper money with another currency.

ِIs it lawful for a middleman to sell the goods he bought from the producer at a higher price than the one agreed upon with the latter and to collect the profit?

ٌNo, it is an unlawful doing because his role is the role of the agent who must abide by the instructions of the authorizer. If the broker was actually able to sell the product at a higher price and the owner did not express any reservations as this regard; in this case, the profit should be collected by the owner and the broker is not entitled but to the wage or recompense decided for him by the owner.

ِSome people ask merchants for products that are not at their disposal. In return, merchants ask for an advance payment to ensure the sale process and to bring the desired product. Is this selling lawfully accepted as concerns the merchant?

ٌ If both parties were only negotiating the terms of the selling that would take place after the merchant brings the asked for product; if there was no real or actual selling of the given product which is not yet possessed by the merchant who is willing to sell in the future; in this case, the merchant does not own the prepayment given to him by the customer considering it as part of the price. This advance payment could be considered as a loan if they meant it to be a loan.

Assuming that the agreement reached by both parties represented an actual selling of the given product; here, the selling is considered void because one cannot sell but one’s properties and that’s what we find in the saying of the Prophet(p) Sell not what you own not. Thus, the merchant, the trader or whosoever does not possess the money or the part of the price that had been given to him.

As for when the whole sale process is being carried out under the form of obligations; the sale becomes then valid and each party possesses, in consequence, what had been transferred to it. And so, the purchaser owns all what the dealer owes him and the dealer owns the amount the purchaser had promised him.

ِ What if the dealer took the entire money in advance, bought the desired goods, and then sold them to the purchaser at a higher price? Is it lawful for him to do so, and is he allowed to collect the profit?

ٌ If the sale process falls under the first two presumptions where the dealer does not own the money and the latter is rather considered as a loan; here, the dealer can sell the product at a higher price as well as he could collect the profit resulting from this operation since no actual sale has happened in their said agreement. But if the sale process falls under the third presumption; in this case, the dealer owns the money and he cannot take more than the agreed upon price.

ِWe have this selling method called “selling on consignment’. Is this method valid and what is the foundation upon which it is based? Should the consignee stick to the consignor’s conditions concerning the price? Or could he simply do what he finds suitable while preserving the consignor’s financial rights?

ٌThis issue can be regarded from two perspectives. First, if the handed over package of goods is regarded as a deposit on the understanding that selling will be on behalf of the consignor where the consignee receives a percentage of the profits; in this case, the consignee must comply with the conditions set by the consignor as regards the price or other things. Nevertheless, the consignee can act freely if the consignor gave him an absolute authorization in selling. Second, if the consignee bought all the goods delivered to him at a certain price and kept for himself the right of returning any remaining unsold articles by revoking the contract concerning them; in this consideration, the consignee becomes an owner and can freely manipulate the price, the sale method as well as the sale conditions without thinking much of the original vendor because as we have just said he becomes the owner of these goods and he can dispose of his properties as he wishes. In fact, the commonly spread use amongst sale processes falls under this consideration.

ِ Do you consider any borrowing charge or payment for money use, a usury or just if it was stipulated?

ٌ Usury is only the charge for a loan or a credit stipulated in the contract of borrowing. As long as an interest is not stated as a condition, it is not considered usury or unlawful. Imam Muhammad al- Baker (a.s.) said: °the best of loans is the one bringing benefit in. (Wassa’il AL-Shi’a, part 18, p. 355) That is, the reward or the extra money given by the borrower to the lender out of kindness and generosity. He (a.s.), moreover, said: °usury is like a condition; yet, it is spoiled by conditions (Wassa’il AL-Shi’a, part 18, p. 190)

ِWhat is your standpoint as regards paper money put into circulation; is it real money or is it just a form of financial instruments issued and pledged by the government, especially that paper money is no longer covered by gold or silver and that the government can devalue it at any time making it useless.

ٌ Paper money is real money in view of its legal consideration founded upon the basis adopted by wise people as concerns financial considerations. Nevertheless, to be dealt with as money, paper money must be covered by gold or by the national wealth such as the metals that the government owns. This, however, does not necessarily mean to establish the exact equivalence between the lira and the amount of gold or metal. Furthermore, it is normal that the value of paper money, when it is the adopted currency, remains dependant on the authority empowered to issue it; in consequence, if the State - and it is the authority enjoying this power - chose to lower the value of paper money, then this leaves the currency with no value.

ِIs it lawful to sell a check at a price less than its monetary worth and in exchange for money of the same or a different currency? And what if the check was returned, what is the amount of money that the check’s original owner should give back to the buyer? Who should assume the costs and expenses, and how the latter are calculated? Are they what he had actually spent or they include the loss that the buyer had been inflicted with as a result of freezing the money he had paid?

ٌ As a matter of fact, a check is not a financial operation; it is rather like a promissory note or a certificate showing evidence of money, and selling a check is the same as exchanging money with money. If a check was returned, the same amount of money paid by the buyer to the check’s owner must be refunded not more or less; and that’s because when the said owner sold his check at a price less than its effective monetary value, he did so only to speedup the cashing, which did not happen. As for the expenses this operation had cost including what the buyer did really spend and the losses he had incur by freezing his money; these should not be assumed by the check’s owner.

ِIs it lawful to sell and purchase currencies at a price specified at the time of the agreement, knowing that delivery and receipt will take place later?

ٌIf we advocated the conviction that the rule of paper money falls under the rule of golden and silver money that dictates the obligatory precaution necessitating the cashing of money by both parties in a given selling operation; on that account, the said sale in which delivery and receipt are delayed is not valid. Handing over and acquisition must take place right away.

ِWhen a person has the capacity to guarantee another person before a bank; is it lawful for him to ask the guaranteed person or the bank for reward in exchange for his guarantee?

ٌ Yes, it is lawful because guaranteeing a person is something worthy of recompense in case it was not donated.

PARTII || PARTIV