Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Intoxication Defined :
Intoxication may be defined as a condition, where by use of intoxicants a person loses normal use of his
physical or mental faculties. It renders him incapable of acting in a manner an ordinary prudent man, in
full possession of his faculties using reasonable care, would act under similar conditions.
The condition is attributed to use of some substance, such as alcohol or drugs, which leads to
impairment of the person's awareness, understanding or control. Intoxication has also been linked with
temporary insanity that lasts till the person remains under the influence of the intoxicant. However,
logically the linkage is not reasonable because intoxication is self-induced condition for which an
intoxicated person can be blamed whereas insanity is by the act of God and an insane person cannot be
blamed for it.
A valid contract is a contract that has the full force of law and is binding to both parties. In contract
disputes involving intoxicated individuals a voidable contract can be avoided by the party that was under
the influence at the time the contract was created. Contract law basics do not distinguish between
voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
During contract disputes in which the intoxicated party attempts to prove that the contract should be
declared voidable, they must prove that they were intoxicated to the point that they were unaware of
the legal consequences of entering into the contract. If this can be proven, it will establish that the
contract violates one of the contract law basics, specifically that the parties to the contract must
genuinely assent to enter the contract.
It is rare that contract disputes are settled in favor of the intoxicated individual being released from the
contract due to being too intoxicated because it is very difficult to conclusively establish the degree of
intoxication which would result in this loss of awareness.
If the courts have ruled that a contract is voidable due to the contracted party's intoxication, then the
intoxicated individual has the right to disaffirm the contract. Contracts to obtain necessary services, such
as medical care, cannot be disaffirmed to to intoxication. Disaffirmation can only be completed by
providing restitution for the contracted service or by returning in full and undamaged the item or items
obtained.
The right to disaffirm a voidable contract can be waived through ratification. The ratification can be
explicit, such as when a party that entered into a contract while intoxicated becomes sober and states
their intention to continue the use of the contracted service.
The ratification can also be implied. Implied ratification occurs when after becoming sober a party
continues to use the item they obtained while intoxicated. Explicit ratification must occur within a
reasonable time of the party's regaining their sobriety.
An alcoholic has the full culpability and liability for contracts entered into while sober as any other
individual.
1: The intoxication was severe enough that the person entering into the contract was incapacitated.
A voidable contract, in this instance, is one in which the intoxicated party can end the agreement
under certain terms. To expand on the criteria above, in order for the intoxicated person to void the
contract, there needs to be adequate proof that one of the following occurred:
1: The intoxicated person consumed enough alcohol or drugs to cause impairment in thinking sufficient
enough that he could not understand the legal ramifications of entering into the contract.
Alcohol or drugs cannot be provided to a party to a contract to entice or persuade them to enter into a
contractual agreement. It should be noted that even if the intoxicated person is able to void the contract,
once sober, the contract can be re-entered by the parties. Let's see what happens when a seemingly
friendly night of drinking turns to a dispute over contractual capacity.
The jurists agree unanimously that the khitab is not directed toward the intoxicated person if such
intoxication has heen caused by the legal use of intoxicants. For example, the person who has consumed
liquor without knowing what it is or when he has done so under coercion or under duress to save his life.
In such cases, the hukm for this person will be the same as that of the person under a spell of fainting.
Muslin jurists disagree about the person who is intoxicated when such intoxication is caused by
prohibited means. The hanfis and some other jurists do not consider such a cause to have any
effect on the capacity for execution and on the understanding of the khitab. Thus, the ibadät are
established against such a person and he will be held liable for delayed performance (gadã'),
aloug with the accompanying sin. Any transaction or acknowledgement he makes is valid and
enforceable against him. He acquires criainal liability for acts committed in such a state, though
he can retract his confessiou made in this state regarding a case of hadud, as these are pure
rights of Allah.
The argument provided by the Hanafis is that intoxication is a crime and as such cannot be an excuse for
waiviag pumishiments. Further, one reason why intoxication has been prohibited is that it leads to other
khaba'ith. Moreover, if the acts of the drunken person are to be exempted from liability, it will become a
means for the commission of offences, and for evading liability.
(Relying on the verse "O ye believerš, approach not prayer when you are intoxicuted, until you
know what you say," [Qur'an 4 : 43])
they maintain that it is obvious that the khitab is addressed to the drunken person and he is expected to
understand the meaning and important of the verse ever when he is intoxicated. If this is not the
interpretation, it would amount to saying to a person under a spell of madness, "Do not commit such an
act when you are insane." It is for this reason that the drunken person is held liable for his acts.