Resorting to Equivalent Compensation in the Saudi Civil Transactions Law A Comparative Jurisprudential Study

Abstract

This research addresses the statutory provisions contained in the Saudi Civil Transactions Law regarding recourse to equivalent compensation. Equivalent compensation is frequently discussed by jurists due to the justice it embodies, which is encouraged by Islamic law. The Civil Transactions Law affirmed it in a set of articles, drawing from Islamic jurisprudence. Employing inductive and comparative approaches, this research collects the scattered statutory provisions related to recourse to equivalent compensation, reorganizes them by grouping similar provisions together, provides a brief explanation of each statutory article, then studies them from a jurisprudential perspective concerning equivalent compensation, and attempts to link the jurisprudential opinion with the statutory provision. The research concluded with a set of findings, the most prominent of which are: that equivalent compensation is resorted to in the system in cases that include the following: when compensation is not specified in the contract, when the benefit of the contracted item continues after the term ends, after contract invalidation or annulment, in the disposition of a patient in the terminal stage showing favoritism, when the agent does not commit to the equivalent price in sales where the principal has left the price open, or in the sale of what is difficult to preserve that was owned by others. The system did not depart from a recognized jurisprudential opinion, nor did it adhere to a particular jurisprudential school, but rather selects from the opinions that best achieve the common interest.