عنوان مقاله [English]
hat is considered in this brief is the accuracy or inaccuracy of the condition of option in the contract of liability. Jurisprudents and researchers have divided the contracts into obligatory and allowable contracts from one aspect. Dissolution of the obligatory contracts is not possible except where there is an option for one of the parties or both of them were satisfied with its dissolution. Irrevocable contracts can be divided from another aspect: those can have an option and those can’t. Some of obligatory contracts can’t bear option and making option in them (like the contract of mortgage or marriage) is not suited to their natures, because the property for example in mortgage is as a guarantee in the
because the consensus is depending on the reason and it is invalid and the tradition is also questionable in document and denotation. Incompatibility of the mentioned taking possessions with the right of mortgaged is doubtable too. Legal and juridical studding, it seems that the idea that transmitting possessions is not incompatible with the right of mortgaged and these two can be
hand of mortgaged and making option for the mortgagor is incompatible with the collateral of that property. Therefore, we must discuss whether the contract of liability is an obligatory contract or authorized one and if it is an obligatory one, may it have an option? If it is doubted, what is the principle in this issue? What is the effect of the condition of option in the contract of liability? If liability dose not bear an option, inserting the condition of option causes nullity of the condition or invalidate both the contract and the condition? What about the conditional option or option of incorrect description? If both parties insert a condition or a description in a contract and one of them will be violated, is there an option for the party that the condition or description was in his favor?
Key words: Contracts, Contract of liability, Option, Option of condition, Obligatory contracts, Authorized contracts.