Option of Fraud in Virtual Transactions and Its Comparison with Non-Virtual Transactions from the Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence and Statutory Law

Abstract

The option of fraud is among the options explicitly stipulated in the Civil Code. The legislator has explicitly mentioned certain options in the Civil Code, which include ten types of options; however, there are also instances mentioned within other articles of the Civil Code, with Article 396 enumerating the explicitly stated options in the law. In both virtual and non-virtual domains, the primary issue is the first cause of forfeiture, which is the condition of forfeiture stipulated within the contract. Fraud is defined as a significant imbalance between the value of the two considerations in a contract, which gives rise to the option of fraud for the defrauded party. The essential conditions for the realization of the option of fraud include the contract being reciprocal, the imbalance of the considerations, and the ignorance of the defrauded party. The option of fraud is immediate. There is also a difference between virtual and non-virtual transactions. With the use of the global Internet network today, many messages and data can be sent or received, allowing individuals, companies, and business enterprises to easily introduce, offer, and purchase their goods or services globally through the creation of an online platform. In addition to the Internet, other electronic communication tools are also used to form contracts, and the number of these tools is so vast that they cannot all be enumerated. In cases where buying and selling are conducted through correspondence, as the parties do not gather in the same place to conclude the contract, there is no doubt that the condition of forfeiture of the option is not fulfilled. Therefore, this forfeiture has several conditions: first, the buyer must have possession, meaning the buyer has been defrauded and has taken possession; second, it must be before the knowledge of the fraud, meaning the buyer has not yet become aware of the fraud; third, this possession must remove the property from ownership; and fourth, the possession must be necessary, with these four conditions rendering the possession as a cause of forfeiture of the option of fraud. In this regard, if a distinction is made between virtual and non-virtual transactions, given that in virtual transactions the property is delivered to the buyer later and thus the buyer discovers the fraud later than in non-virtual transactions, it seems necessary in virtual transactions for the defrauded party to take possession of and inspect the property.