What is the ruling on a binding promise to lease in a lease-to-own contract, and to what extent is this transaction permissible?
It is permissible to burden the promisor with the loss incurred by the promisee, provided that this is within the limits of compensating for actual damage. This is to ensure the seriousness of the client in fulfilling his promise and the obligations arising therefrom. In the case of Muntahiyah bi al-Tamleek (lease ending in ownership), the promisor bears the difference between the cost of the asset and the total actual rent for which the asset is leased to a third party. As for operational Ijarah, if the promisor defaults, he bears the difference between the purchase cost of the asset and its selling price to a third party, if the promisee chooses to sell it. Fulfilling the promise is obligatory from a religious standpoint, and if non-fulfillment results in harm to the promisee, the promisor is legally obligated to compensate for the damage.
Summary from Ftawy's records · added here
Reviewed by El Fatwa's sharia committee.
Read the full answer on Ftawyhttps://ftawy.com/en/questions/193745
Where this answer came from
- Source platform
- Ftawy
- Original fatwa ID
- 193745
- Added here
- . This is when the answer was added to El Fatwa, not the fatwa's date.
- Text
- Summary from Ftawy's records, reviewed by El Fatwa's sharia committee.
- Read the full ruling
- Read the full answer on Ftawy