Possession of Counter-Condition

Content of the contracts and the conditions set within them are binding and there is no difference between the condition of action and condition of omission in this respect. As we can force the condition through some requirements to refrain from violation of the condition of action (condition of omission) and this case should not be doubted; however, the question is raised as to what is the judgment of possession of counter-condition in terms of effectiveness or non-effectiveness? Is the possession of conveyor or the possession that considers the object of transaction or condition to belong to a third party an invalid possession the possession of suspension, or the possession of effectiveness? In this brief account we narrate and criticize the reasoning of well-known experts who believe the possessions of counter-conditions are absolutely invalid and explain the reasons put forth by the jurisprudents who consider the transaction to be valid only with the presumption of adhesion of permission of the conditioner, we later provide the reasons by the jurisprudents who do not consider the validity of the counter-condition possessions to require the adhesion of permission, and in the final judgment between the recent two groups of jurisprudents we have chosen the opinion of those well-known experts who consider the possessions of counter-conditions to be valid only with the adhesion of permission.