and from the legal-validity perspective, we have previously mentioned that it is valid by any wording that indicates authorization, and that agency is valid in every human right.

But from the legal-ruling perspective, is it a non-binding contract or a binding contract? The author says that it is a non-binding contract. A non-binding contract is one which either of the two contracting parties may terminate without the other’s consent or permission.

The reason for this is clear: agency is authorization on the part of the principal and a voluntary service on the part of the agent. Thus, the agent may withdraw, and the principal may also withdraw.

His statement, “Agency is a non-binding contract,” indicates that contracts include those which are non-binding, those which are binding, and those which are non-binding for one party and binding for the other.

A sale contract, after the parties have separated from the session of sale, is binding, unless an option condition has been stipulated, due to the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “The sale has become binding” (1).

A pledge is non-binding on the part of the pledgee but binding on the part of the pledgor. The reason is clear, for the right in the pledge belongs to the pledgee. If he agrees to release and remove the pledge, then the right is his; but it is an obligation upon the pledgor, so he has no right to free himself from it.

Agency is non-binding for both parties. Thus, the categories of contracts are complete, and they are three:

A contract binding upon both parties.

A contract non-binding upon both parties.