This agreement is entered into through Wa`ad with respect to the conclusion of a Musawama in Section 6 (f) (v) of TMA, that is, an entity that undertakes to conduct asset transactions at closing to ensure payment of the index in question29. The TMA Guide provides 30: A new definition of “Islamic financing” has been included in the TMA as follows: In addition, the parties may agree from time to time (documents and other confirming evidence exchanged between the parties or that are otherwise effective in confirming or creating such an agreement as “confirmation of the terms of the DFT”). under this DFT agreement conditions, the parties agree to enter into an agreement between them in the future, as part of this master contract, or (ii) a transaction which, by such an agreement of DFT terms, undertakes to conclude the other (the second part) under this steering contract in the election of the second party at a later date (all of these other transactions are “forward transactions” in progress). Unless expressly stated in this master contract, designated future transactions are not transactions for the purposes of this master`s agreement, unless they are concluded pending a subsequent conclusion and are not considered to be confirmed and no longer qualified as future transactions.” In accordance with the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA, the TMA is a master`s or framework agreement that, in itself, does not give rise to enforceable obligations. In this context, the IIFM/ISDA declaration on the ISDA/IIFM Tahawwut Master Agreement of 1 March 2010 (the “TMA Guide”) provides that an ISDA/IIFM Tahawwut exchange agreement is an agreement to adapt to Sharia-compliant swap structures. Although the concept of market listing and loss is largely based on the 1992 ISDA, Loss, unlike the 1992 ISDA, does not specifically refer, for reasons of compliance, to the loss of negotiations, financing costs or losses or costs resulting from termination, liquidation, obtaining or re-establishing a position of guarantee or related negotiation. This raises the possibility that the amount of damages, which is calculated for the same economic operation that was documented in a 1992 ISDA and may be different according to the TMA, because a party wishing to recover a “loss” under the TMA must prove that such a “loss” was due to the type of damage that was restored under the Hadley/Baxendale Rule (1854) 9 Exch 34125. The result is an element of the basic risk. If a hedging transaction with TMA has been documented under another framework agreement, the amount of damages may differ, as these related transactions are concluded using a different methodology.