[A Man Contracted for His Minor Son but Said in the Contract: “I Accepted the Contract for Myself”]

Answer—and Allah grants success and aid: Based on the rule that “Muslims’ contracts must be construed as valid wherever possible,” we say: the contract is valid.
If it is said: The father accepted the marriage contract for himself, so the woman contracted becomes the wife of the father, not of the son—
We say: The father only accepted in that wording on the basis that his son’s contract would not be completed unless he accepted in that way. The father believed that that wording of acceptance was necessary for the validity of his son’s contract, and he accepted on the strength of that belief, which the officiant had confirmed to him. Since that is so, the contracted woman does not become the wife of the father, because the father’s “acceptance for himself” was not intended—neither by the officiant nor by the one accepting. The outward wording carries no weight when all parties understand that the acceptance—by that wording—is on behalf of the son.
Likewise with all contracts and declarations concluded in this manner: their outward form is not decisive. For example, someone who intends to enter iḥrām for a standalone Hajj asks another how to enter; he is told: “Say: O Allah, I enter iḥrām for Hajj and ʿUmrah together,” or “for ʿUmrah enjoying it until Hajj,” so he says it thus, then proceeds to perform the rites of the standalone Hajj—his Hajj is valid, and he is not bound by what he uttered while ignorant. The same applies to all contracts and declarations learned by rote by a layman.