What is the ruling on a stipulation limiting the use of a hired service to only an equivalent or lighter party, excluding the lessee or a lighter representative?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Leasing
Primary text
If a condition is stipulated that the benefit cannot be utilized by the lessee himself nor by someone lighter than the intended rider, the correct position according to our school (madhhab) is that the contract is valid, but the condition is void. This is analogous to a ruling concerning land cultivation where a condition stipulating only wheat cultivation, excluding others, results in the condition being void while the lease remains valid.
Supporting text
There is a potential view that the condition itself is valid because the lessee derives ownership of the benefit from the lessor and cannot utilize what has not been agreed upon. Furthermore, the lessor might have a specific interest in restricting the utilization to a particular party. Conversely, another opinion suggests the condition is void because it contradicts the essence of the contract, which grants the right to utilize the benefit personally, through a representative, or partially through each. A further difference of opinion exists regarding whether this contradictory condition invalidates the entire contract; the sounder view is that it does not invalidate the contract because it neither benefits nor harms the lessor's right, thus the condition is disregarded and the contract stands on its default terms. The alternative view holds that it invalidates the contract because it contradicts the contract's purpose, similar to stipulating that no benefit whatsoever should be utilized.