The Effects of the Cancellation of a Contract on the Alienable Possession from the Standpoints of Iranian Law and Imamieh Jurisprudence

Hossein Jafari Samet ¹ ( is a doctoral student in the Department of Private Law, Faculty of Humanities, Ayatollah Amoly Branch, Islamic Azad University, Amoly, Iran. )
Mahshid Sadat Tabaei ² ( Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Humanities, Electronic Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran )
Javad Niknejad, ³ ( Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Humanities, West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. )

Submited date : 2022-09-16 Accepted date : 2022-09-18

Keywords: Observation, Cancellation, Invalidity. one in whose favor an option is stipulated. one against whom an option is stipulated,

Abstract :

Although, the contracts are binding, but in some occasions, due to some reasons, one of the parties may decide to cancel a contract. A cancellation of contract results in termination of a contract and its effects. The important point regarding the cancellation of a contract is that, if, after concluding a contract and before cancellation, a transferee take the possession of an object of transaction as a transferor, for example, if they sell an object of transaction to a third party, what may be the effects of cancellation of the contract on the alienable possession? Dose it results also in cancellation of the selling, or, principally, the transferee might not to do the transferring acts? And, as the consequence, the transaction is invalid? There is some disagreement among the lawyers and jurisprudents on the interpretations of Iranian law and Imamieh jurisprudence. Although, there is less disagreement on the interpretations of legal cancellations of contracts, and, principally, the jurisprudents and lawyers both believe that this cancellation has no effects on the validity of the selling. Then, the transferee should return the object of transaction to the transferor. But, on the contractual powers, including option of condition, there is disagreement between the lawyers and the jurisprudents. Some of them believe that in those options of conditions there is an implicit condition that one against whom an option is stipulated may not take possession of an object, including the possession of the object of a transaction, by violation of conditions, otherwise, the transaction is invalid. Some other believe that, regarding the mentioned options of conditions, unless it is expressly stipulated otherwise, one against whom an option is stipulated may not take possession of an object of transaction.