The Expiration of the Financial Lease Contract: A Comparative Study between Jordanian Legislation and Egyptian Legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leasing activity has proved its importance as a competitive tool of financing, especially with the growing awareness of a lot of legislations of the benefits provided by leasing as a source of funding, as well as the increasing size of projects and their need for more flexible funding sources that are more liable to respond to the requirements of profitability required by these projects. Since the financial leasing contract is in progressive development just like any other aspect of the economy through which it grows, I preferred that the subject of this research shall be on the expiration of the financial leasing contact in the Jordanian Legislation compared with the Egyptian Legislation. It is clear that a financial lease contract is similar to any other contract in terms that ends on appointed date. However, and because of the particular nature of the financial leasing contract, It differs from what is provided in the General Provisions regarding the expiration of the leasing contract since it is distinguished by the fact that it gives the lessee at the end of the term three choices: The lessee buys the leased assets, or extends the leasing contract or returns the leased asset. A common reason for ending the financial leasing contract is the termination of the contract by revoking it. If any party breaches the obligations rendered on them, the second party may terminate the contract and will be free from any obligations since the financial leasing contract is a binding contract for both parties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".