Court Finds No Meeting of the Minds on "Mahr"

In Obaidi v. Qayoum, (WA App., Feb. 23, 2010), a Washington state appellate court refused to enforce a mahr-- a prenuptial agreement based on Islamic law that provides an immediate and long-term dowry to the wife. When the couple's marriage was dissolved after 13 months, the wife claimed she was entitled to $20,000 under the terms of the mahr. However the court concluded, applying neutral principles of contract law, that the parties had not entered a valid agreement. The court said in part:

A valid contract requires a meeting of the minds on the essential terms.... Mr. Qayoum was not told that he would be required to participate in a ceremony that would include the signing of a mahr until 15 minutes before he signed the mahr. Here Mr. Qayoum was unaware of the terms of the agreement until they were explained to him by an uncle after the mahr had been signed. The negotiations preceding the execution of the agreement were conducted in Farsi. Also, the document was written in Farsi which Mr. Qayoum does not read, write, or speak.... Because Mr. Qayoum could not speak, write, or read Farsi, there was no meeting of the minds as to the terms of the mahr agreement. In addition, the court indicated that the agreement was influenced by duress.

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]