What is the ruling on taking a false oath, in terms of its meaning, to fully recover a right in a case where checks are written as collateral for a cash debt, with the condition of prior agreement to claim a cash debt to recover rights upon default, knowing that the required wording of the oath does not conform to reality, and that not taking the oath will lead to the complete loss of the right?

The summary of the answer is as follows:

First: The oath of the swearer before the judge is based on the intention of the one who administers the oath, not on his own intention. If your right will be lost unless you swear with that specific wording, then there is no blame upon you. Scholars have included among the situations where the Lawgiver permitted lying, cases where there is a necessity or an urgent need for it. Some scholars are of the view that the intention is beneficial if the swearer is oppressed, even before the judge. Therefore, if you are compelled to swear with that wording to secure your right or part of it, there is no blame upon you for doing so.

Second: The renter is not liable for damage to the car unless it results from negligence or transgression. It is not permissible to demand rent from him for the period the car was out of commission, as the rental contract is terminated due to the impossibility of benefiting from the asset.