The Distinction between the Right of Rescission and the Permission of Reversion in Islamic Transactional Jurisprudence

Although rescission and reversion both represent voluntary dissolution in transactions in a general sense, there exists a fundamental distinction between the two in terms of substance. They share similarities in certain requiremets and consequences, but this resemblance should not be construed as an equivalence of their true nature. The concepts of "right of rescission" and "permission of reversion" differ in terms of their essence, foundations, and application. Therefore, this article employs a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach to analyze and examine "rescission" and "reversion" from the perspectives of their nature, characteristics, requirements, and applications. The findings indicate that the establishment of the right of rescission is based on maximizing the freedom of the contracting parties to mitigate harm and is a legal provision. In contrast, the purpose of establishing reversion is to secure the welfare of individuals and provide easement by the legislator. Reversion cannot be subsumed under assets, whether financial, non-financial, valuable, or tangible, as it is not a right, and the will of the parties does not play a role in its creation; rather, it is established solely by the command of Sharia and the law. Generally, rescission is enforceable in all binding contracts except for specific options like the option of the meeting-place, option of animal, and option of delayed payment of the price, which are limited to sales and considered exceptional, restricted to gifts, wills, and divorce. In contrast to the right of rescission, the permission of reversion is personal, non-waivable, and non-transferable.