Differences in the satisfaction of the contracting parties in the transfer contract. Extracted from a doctoral thesis entitled:The impact of the difference of the contracting parties in the contracts of documentation and trusts A comparative jurisprudential study

 
Islam has paid great attention to organizing people’s transactions and contracts in a way that reduces the occurrence of disputes and disagreements that lead to corruption among them, especially since man is naturally inclined to love money. Although Islamic law has clarified the pillars and conditions of financial dealings between people to protect their rights and prevent conflict and disagreement, human souls have different natures, and may be governed by whims and interests if they are not governed by a binding legislative rule in some cases, such as the judiciary.
In terms of contracts, Sharia has clarified what the contract should be based on, in terms of knowledge of the contracted item, and if this is not possible, then through its description, with proof of the option for the contracting party upon seeing it, etc. However, one of the parties to the contract may claim that he was cheated because he thought that the contracted item was less than what the other party was demanding, or more, and other claims in which each party is keen to show that he has the right, and if one of them had evidence, the dispute would be resolved, but most disputes lack evidence due to the large number of dealings between people.
Jurists have different definitions of transfer, although they are similar in general; its meaning revolves around the transfer of money from one account to another. Jurists have mentioned conditions for the transferor, the transferee, and the transferor, which are: sanity, adulthood, and consent. However, they differed on the condition of consent, as will become clear in this research.