Insurable interest in property insurance: A comparative study amongst English, Canadian and Saudi Arabian laws.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis is split into two parts. The first part examines the principle of insurable interest in property insurance as a test which distinguishes insurance contracts from wagering. Throughout the study, the principle of insurable interest will be explored and analyzed under English and Canadian Laws as models of the common law, on the one hand, and Saudi Law which is based upon Islamic Law, i.e. Sharia, on the other. The second part deals with the Saudi conception of insurance contracts. Insurance contracts have been rejected by Sharia on the ground that they contain elements of Riba, (usury) Gharar, (uncertainty) and Maysir (gambling). Muslim scholars believe that where one of those elements is found in an insurance contract, it will be vitiated by virtue of Sharia principles. The principal object of this study is not only to make a critical study of the common law approach to insurable interest but to suggest a model of insurance that complies with the general principles of Sharia. The thesis consists of eight chapters. The first chapter provides a brief outline of the requirement of insurable interest under the common law models and Saudi law. It will outline the objectives, significance, methodology, scope and the structure of the thesis. The second chapter will be devoted to a historical examination of the contract of insurance together with the requirement of insurable interest. The third chapter will consider the nature of the requirement of insurable interest and the principle of indemnity. The fourth chapter will discuss the consequences of lack of insurable interest. The fifth chapter outlines the conception of contract in Saudi law and outlines the importance and the influence of Islamic law upon Saudi law. It also explores the elements of Riba, usury Maysir, gambling and Gharar, uncertainty. The sixth chapter will discuss the distinction between what Muslim scholars call 'commercial insurance', the original form of insurance that is understood by the common law and which is forbidden under Sharia, and 'co-operative insurance,' which, it will be argued is acceptable to Sharia. The seventh chapter will propose an alternative form of insurance that accommodates Sharia, i.e. 'solidary insurance.' The final chapter, eight, will evaluate the outcomes and will compare and contrast the contract of insurance in its original form, co-operative insurance and the suggested form of insurance, so-called 'solidary insurance.'
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".