A Jurisprudential and Legal Study of the Feasibility of Referring to and Deviating (Udoul) from the Contract Termination

Recourse from contract termination refers to the ability of a person who terminates a contract to subsequently regret their decision and revoke the termination, thereby reinstating the contract. This research, conducted through an analytical-descriptive method and relying on library sources, explores the nature of the right to terminate and its distinction from the right of recourse from termination. To establish the prohibition of such recourse, even if it may be supported with caution, this study cites principles such as "what is void cannot be revived," "the prohibition of benefiting from void property," "dominion," "the disappearance of the effects of termination after its establishment," and, most importantly, the principle of "the primacy of necessity in contracts." Additionally, it argues against the existence of valid reasons for allowing recourse from the right to terminate, while critically examining opposing arguments. It is suggested that recourse (revocation) from contract termination presents both jurisprudential and legal challenges, leading to practical complications and increased disorder in contracts, resulting in an escalation of lawsuits, as well as certain societal costs.