A gift made in jest and taking contracts by their wording

The questioner:
There is no relevance to Mars.

The Shaykh:
In transactions, the wording is what counts, not the intention. This is the case in acts of worship, where the intention is what counts. As for transactions, if you said, "I sold you my house for one million riyals," and then said, "No, I was just joking with you," and he said, "I bought it," and you said, "I bought it," and then you said, "No, I was just joking," we say: No, there is no joking here. These are contracts. Yes.

The questioner:
If he said to you, "A car." If he said to you, "A Mazda car."

The Shaykh:
As for the joker, the point is: if he said to you, "My car," and the recipient of the gift took it, it is binding on him, even if he was saying it in jest. Yes. Guard your tongue from such things. Yes.

The questioner:
May it be with you.

The Shaykh:
This is from the perspective of litigation and courts. But between him and Allah, that is another matter. However, from the perspective of the judiciary, the judge binds him by the apparent wording of his statement. If the door were opened, all contracts would be lost. Everyone would say, "I swear to Allah, I did not mean this; I was joking or making fun of so-and-so." Yes, the door is not opened in this regard from the perspective of the judiciary. But between him and Allah, that is another matter; Allah will hold him accountable for it. Yes.