Disputed Sales

1) By Deposit: a prospective buyer gives the seller a deposit of down payment on the condition that the payment would in the event a sale is executed contribute towards the price of the subject matter. If no sale is executed the payment made is forfeit. This transaction is rejected on the grounds that the taking of the money is unlawful (as nothing is given in exchange) and because there is uncertainty and ambiguity about future conduct (it is not certain that the sale will occur).(This transaction is distinct from a call option in that the deposit is lost only if there is no sale, whereas the deposit is forfeit in either outcome of a call option.)  A minority and recent view is that this sale by deposit is allowable on grounds of custom; the further argument has been made that the forfeiture may be regarded as a penalty for breach of promise (should promises be elevated to a contractual level).

2) Sale of Debt: This is the sale of receivables, where the receivable is sold to a third party at a discount. However the sale of a debt to a third party at par value is allowed, as is the sale of the debt by the creditor to the debtor at a discount. In the sale of debt at a discount money is treated as a commodity, which is unlawful. In recent years notably in Malaysia proponents of securitization have contended that securitised debts may be sold as they are distinct from money as a commodity and on the grounds that a regulatory system may protect the buyer and mitigate risk and the possibility of fraud.

3) By Repurchase Agreement: A person sells goods for a deferred price and repurchases them immediately for a lower price. Or he or she purchases goods for a cash price and sells them immediately at a higher deferred price to the same person. The purpose of either of these two pairs of transactions is not the sale/purchase of the item since ultimately the owner of the item is unchanged although the prohibition on two sales in one is not breached as there are two sales contracts, and neither references the unlawful purpose. Essentially these are sham or fictitious contracts. Two of the four legal schools consider this sequence of contracts lawful, one with strong reservations; the reason is that the legal schools differ over the legal salience of the motive or intention of the contracting parties and where these are not legally relevant the sale by repurchase agreement cannot be faulted.

4) Tripartite Sale: A person makes a purchase at a deferred higher price in order to sell the item purchased to a third party for a lower cash price. A bank would participate in this type of transaction if the buyer should appoint the bank as an agent to sell the commodity in the market for a cash price. In this case the way the tripartite sale has been implemented by banks the sale may be fictitious with the commodity purchased having no actual existence, only a formal existence on paper. The buyer is seeking credit not the item that has been purchased. The tripartite sale would be allowed with reservations only by a minority and contemporary standards-setting organisations have condemned it.

5) Deferred Payment Sale: Can be either bargain or trust sale. Either delayed or instalment payments made for purchase of a good. If the deferred or installment price is the same as the spot price, no issue arises. However  if the price is increased as a result of the postponement, some scholars consider the contract usury as the increase is result of imputing time value to money. Supporters however consider this sale contract lawful on the grounds that the parties are free to negotiate a price, and because unlike in usurious transactions only the price (not both subject matter and price) are money.