Waiver (Abrogating, Abolishing) of the Right to Accept the Occurrence (Contingency) of a New Defect with Compensation (Criticism of Clause 3 of Article 429 of the Civil Code)

According to the well-known (dominant) views of jurists, abolishing of the right not to accept the occurrence (contingency) of a defect to the customer has stipulated in the third clause of article 429 of the Civil Code and has not limited it to non-extinction (non-extinguishment) of defect. Whereas some jurists believe that if the defect is removed by the customer, the right of rejection will still be reserved for the customer. This research, which has been conducted by descriptive-analytical method, shows that the Mursallah (Arabic:مرسله , meaning: sent or transmitted, tradition with no chain of transmitters or with an incomplete one) of Jamīl b. Darrāj (Arabic: جمیل بن دراج) is the only scriptural proof (traditional proof, scriptural evidence) for being abolishing (waiver, abrogating), which Akhund Khurāsānī (Persian: آخوند خراسانی) rejects the adherence to it and believes that being in abolishing (waiver, abrogating) is in order to observe the status and state of the seller. Therefore, there is no way to use the narrations mentioned in the assumption of compensation of damage. The occurred defect is not relevant for the extinction (disapproval) of the right of rejection, but the criterion is the cause of harm to the seller and not respecting his/her right, so it seems that if the occurred defect is resolved, the right of abolishing will not be revoked, and the mentioned article needs to be amended (corrected).