The disagreement between the partners was a reason for dissolving the company and removing the partner from it.

The intention of participation is considered a fundamental pillar of the specific objective aspect of the company's contract, which distinguishes it from other similar contracts; it expresses the shared desire of the partners — eating bread and salt together — which imposes on them familiarity and positive cooperation to achieve the purpose of the company and share in the profits or losses it achieves. The partner must, depending on the form of the company, do everything that would make the company's devices operate normally, and refrain from anything that would hinder these devices from performing their legal duties or disrupt the company's activity and economic role. Considering the intention of participation as an initial pillar at the company's establishment is undisputed; if it is absent, it leads to the nullity of the company contract and its transformation into another contract, such as a loan contract or a work contract with profit sharing, according to the theory of contract transformation. However, the problematic and debated issue is: the effect of the disappearance of the intention of participation during the company's life, especially if a dispute arises among the partners, and conflict, discord, and separation replace familiarity, cooperation, and harmony, resulting in hindering the company's devices from performing their functions normally in accordance with the law and the economic and financial foundations for managing and operating the company's economic project. Here, the following questions arise: Is it permissible for any partner to request the court to dissolve the company before its scheduled time? And is it permissible for partners to request the court to dismiss the partner responsible for inciting the dispute that led to the disruption of the company's activity, instead of dissolving it? If the answer to these questions is affirmative, then the following question arises: do these rules apply to all forms of commercial companies, or do they only apply to partnership companies, considering that they are based on personal considerations and operate — in principle — according to the consensus of the partners? This contrasts with capital companies, which are based on financial considerations and operate within an institutional framework that makes decisions according to the principle of majority. The answer to all these questions is the subject of this book, where the opinions of scholars are collected and supported by judicial rulings. This issue is considered one of the practical problems that frequently appear in the lives of most companies. I present this modest effort to my colleagues and law students, praying that God benefits the reader, who we hope will forgive us for any error or shortcoming, as this is part of human nature; and God is the grantor of success. The author