Article 17 of the Mecelle: Legal Analysis of the Principle “Hardship Begets Facility”

The Maxim, Its Essence, and Islamic Foundations

The Maxim: المشقة تجلب التيسير Hardship begets facility (Meşakkat teysîri celb ider)

The Essence of the Maxim: The difficulty and hardship (su’ubat) encountered in a legal matter pave the way for its facilitation (tashil) and alleviation (tahwin). As the great legal scholar Ali Haydar Efendi profoundly expounded in his masterpiece Dürerü’l-Hükkâm, it is essential for the law to flex and provide latitude (wus’ah) during times of distress. This principle ensures that the law transcends being a rigid and purely formalistic set of rules, enabling it to respond to commercial and social needs.

Islamic Foundations: This principle is one of the fundamental universal maxims of Islamic legal methodology (Usul al-Fiqh), known as Al-Mashaqqah tajlib al-taysir. It derives its legal basis from the text (nass) “Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship” (Surah Al-Baqarah: 185). In fiqh terminology, this situation is embodied in the institution of “Ruhsah” (dispensation/exemption). As accurately defined by Ali Haydar Efendi, a ruhsah is “that which is secondarily legislated upon an excuse”. Although the law establishes strict rules (azimah) as a general principle, in cases where the application of these rules becomes impossible or excessively burdensome, the fiqh dispensations (ruhsahs) underscored by Ali Haydar Efendi come into play.

Causes, Limits, Conditions, and Practical Examples

The “hardship” that requires the law to be flexible is not the subjective difficulty that contracting parties fall into as a result of their own faults, lack of foresight, or ordinary commercial risks. This boundary is strictly drawn in Islamic law by the doctrine of “Umum al-Balwa” (general and widespread affliction) and substantiated with practical examples (furu’) by Ali Haydar Efendi.

Limits and Conditions:

• Social Impact (Generality): The hardship must not affect just one individual, but must be a macro-level crisis (such as war, famine, or economic depression) that affects the market or society in general.
• Inevitability (Necessity): It is required that avoiding, taking precautions against, or being protected from the emerging crisis is practically or commercially impossible.
• No Conflict with Mandatory Rules: The facility to be provided must not take on a nature that completely abolishes the fundamental mandatory rules (jus cogens) of the law.

Practical Examples from the Mecelle: Ali Haydar Efendi analyzes the sub-branches (furu’) of Article 17 through the following concrete commercial examples:

• Lapse of the Option of Inspection (Khiyar al-Ru’yah): Seeing the outside of a pile of wheat or looking at only a portion of a fabric that is uniform inside and out is sufficient to purchase that good. The buyer’s right to rescind the contract on the grounds of not seeing every single piece lapses. Since examining the entire batch is a hardship that would bring commercial life to a halt, according to Ali Haydar Efendi’s analysis, such a reasonable inspection is deemed legally sufficient, thereby providing facility (taysir).
• Option of Condition (Khiyar al-Shart) and Option of Payment (Khiyar al-Naqd): The condition that the contract can be terminated if payment is not made within a certain period (khiyar al-naqd), and the granting of the right of withdrawal within a certain period (khiyar al-shart), are exceptional flexibilities created to prevent payment difficulties and commercial grievances that the parties might face. Ali Haydar Efendi grounds the legitimacy of these exceptions directly on Article 17.

Legal Philosophy and Universal Logic (The Philosophical Core)

The primary objective of the law is to establish order; however, this order must not turn into an obstacle that brings social and commercial life to a standstill. The principle that hardship begets facility forms the foundation of legal pragmatism. If the literal application of a strict rule creates a bottleneck (hardship) to a degree that destroys the inherent economic purpose of the contract or transaction, the system must produce an exception from within itself. This philosophy expresses the law’s preference to flex rather than break, in accordance with the principle of sustainability.

Projections in Modern Law (Modern Legal Equivalents)

This maxim continues to exist in contemporary legal systems as principles of the law of obligations and consumer law.

Reflections in Turkish Law:

• Hardship / Excessive Difficulty of Performance (TCO Article 138): If an extraordinary event, which was unforeseeable by the parties at the time the contract was made, arises and does not result from the debtor’s fault, and demanding performance has become so burdensome as to violate the rules of good faith, the debtor may request the adaptation of the contract. This article is the modern codification of the Umum al-Balwa concept.
• Mitigation of the Scope of Liability (TCO Article 114): The rule that the judge evaluates liability more leniently if the transaction provides no benefit to the debtor (e.g., courtesy transport, gratuitous mandate) is based on the logic of providing flexibility (taysir) in hardship.

Civil Law:

• The principle of Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus (validity as long as circumstances remain the same) and the theory of Imprévision (unforeseeability) in French law grant the judge the authority to adapt the contract to prevent its ruin in cases of excessive difficulty of performance.

Common Law:

• The doctrines of Frustration of Purpose and Commercial Impracticability provide flexibility to the parties in the event that performance becomes objectively and excessively burdensome.

Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG):

• In the context of the Duty to Examine the Goods, the buyer is expected to examine the goods within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. Similar to the option of inspection (khiyar al-ru’yah) example in the Mecelle, microscopic examinations that would stall commercial life are not demanded.

International Trade and Judicial Applications

Risk allocation, force majeure, and hardship clauses in international trade are the areas where the philosophy of relieving hardship is most intensely applied. Arbitral tribunals separate the concept of hardship from subjective damages and evaluate it within a narrow and objective framework (by the standards of Umum al-Balwa).

Independence of the Arbitration Agreement and Claims of Impossibility:

• Impossibility and frustration are put forward as a legal basis in objections directed at the substantive validity of arbitration agreements.
• However, courts and arbitral tribunals, pursuant to the “separability presumption,” accept that the arbitration clause maintains its validity even in situations where the foundation of the commercial contract has collapsed or its performance has become impossible.
• Supporting this rule, in the Unionmutual Stock Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Beneficial Life Ins. Co. decision, the court ruled that the defendant’s attempt to rescind the entire contract based on frustration of purpose would not eliminate the arbitration clause. The Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp. decision also confirms this situation.
• In the context of arbitration procedure, a genuine state of impossibility or frustration is strictly limited to objective disruptions beyond the parties’ control, such as the death of an arbitrator specifically named in the arbitration agreement or the cessation of the selected arbitral institution’s existence.

Force Majeure and Hardship Practice in International Arbitration (ICC) Awards: When examining the arbitral awards rendered within the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), it is observed that arbitral tribunals tie hardship to objective, societal, and inevitability parameters.

• While evaluating force majeure, arbitral tribunals strictly require the criteria of the event’s unforeseeability (imprévisibilité), irresistibility (irrésistibilité), and insurmountability (insurmontabilité).
• Valid macro-level hardship (force majeure) scenarios accepted include armed conflicts (conflit armé), natural disasters (catastrophes naturelles), and state interventions (fait du prince).
• Within the scope of the frustration of the contract, macro-level crises (Umum al-Balwa) affecting the entire market, such as the hostage-taking of site personnel, extraordinary increases in steel prices, and foreign exchange crises (contrôle des changes), have been taken into consideration by arbitral tribunals.
• In hardship applications adapting the contract to changing circumstances, the UNIDROIT principles are taken as the basic reference, aiming to keep the contract alive (taysir). In disputes involving commercial contracts where companies based in Türkiye are parties, arbitral tribunals also resort to softening strict performance rules with such precedent ICC criteria.

References

[1] Ali Haydar Efendi, Dürerü’l-Hükkâm Şerhu Mecelleti’l-Ahkâm (Commentary on the Mecelle). [2] Gary B. Born, International Arbitration: Law and Practice, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2012. [3] Jean-Jacques Arnaldez, Yves Derains, Dominique Hascher, Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 2008-2011, Wolters Kluwer / ICC Publication, 2013.