A Critique on Amir Nasser Katouzian’s Opinions ‎about Differentiating between the Sanction of ‎Legal Forbearance and the Negative Status ‎Condition ‎

The agreement to abandon a certain legal act, whether the subject of the main obligation is in a contract or in the form of a condition attached to the contract, according to various general legal principles, including the principle of validity and the principle of irrevocability and according to articles 10, 219, 231 and 237 of the Civil Code is valid. This sometimes appears in the form of a condition of a legal forbearance and sometimes it takes the form of a negative status condition (Shart-e Natijeh). When this kind of agreement is violated, we will inevitably face the issue of validity or invalidity of the contrary legal act.When facing this issue, three basic questions can be asked: First, whether the legal act contrary to mentioned agreement should be considered invalid, or the validity of the said legal act should be admitted and the obligee should be directed towards receiving possible damages from the offending obligor as a solution more compatible with Iran's legal system. The other thing is whether, one of these two solutions being chosen, a single procedure should be adopted and the same sanction be applied in the event of a violation of either of these two forms of agreement, or the sanction of violation of legal forbearance and negative status clause are different n the first of which thevalidity of the legal act and in the second the invalidity of the legal act are acceptable. Finally, if we believe in the necessity of distinguishing between the sanction of the violation of these two forms of the agreement, what is the criterion for distinguishing the two from each other. The study of jurisprudential sources, legal books and articles, as well as a brief reflection on judicial precedent shows that there is no unanimity of opinion regarding the sanction of the breach of these two forms of agreement and that, especially among lawyers, the theory of the necessity of differentiating between the sanction of legal forbearance and the negative status condition has a more significant influence.One of the jurists who has dealt with these questions in fair detail in his numerous works and believes in the necessity of distinguishing between the sanction of legal forbearance and the violation of negative status condition is Professor Katoozian. Although many jurists have also looked into this issue, it is more necessary to emphasize and focus on his works in this field for three main reasons: firstly, the theories of professor Katoozian, including this theory, have a really special importance and credibility in Iran's legal and judicial system. It has been and continues to be the place of reference for judges, lawyers and other jurists. Another thing is that in the opinion of the author, there is some kind of ambiguity or incoherence in the contents of his analyses regarding the above questions, and the present study provides the opportunity to re-examine his positions in this regard. Finally, the criticism and detailed explanation of Professor Katoozian's views and opinions, like any other great theorist, apart from being a kind of appreciation for their years of scientific and effective efforts, leads to the emergence and flourishing of new ideas and solutions and ultimately to the development of the legal system.In this article, the author has tried to analyze Professor Katouzian's theory regarding the necessity of distinguishing between the sanction of legal forbearance and the violation of the negative status condition based on the above questions. The research shows that his theory is not compatible with the famous opinion of the Islamic jurists, the standards of the civil Code, and the fundamental orientation of the judicial procedure, and that in case of violation of any of these two forms of agreement, the sanction of invalidity of the contrary legal act must be defended.