Is it required to specify the conditions of contracts other than marriage (such as sale, lease, or reconciliation) during litigation?

Primary text

It is not obligatory to specify the conditions of contracts other than marriage, such as sale or lease, in a claim, according to the sounder of two opinions. This is because these contracts are not subject to the same precautions as marriage, nor do they require a guardian (wali) or witnesses, unlike marriage. Therefore, they do not necessitate the specification of conditions, similar to a claim over a specific object (ain). This applies whether the object sold is a female slave or something else, as it is still a sale. Similarly, if the claim involves a specific object or a debt, the basis of the claim does not need to be detailed because the causes are numerous and uncountable, and the claimant might be unaware of the precise basis of their right. It suffices for the claimant to state, "I have a right to this object in his possession," or "I have a right to such and such from his assets." In a sale, the claimant states, "I bought this female slave from him for one thousand dirhams," or "I sold it to him for that amount." It is unnecessary to state, "It was his property," or "It was my property," and "We concluded the matter agreeably and parted by mutual consent." The proof rests on the general principle that what is established without the requirement of a guardian or witnesses does not require detailed exposition of its basis.