Jurists and lawyers allocated the Right of rescission- that it is rule of general contract law - to the irrevocable contract. This means legal acts lacking in " contractual " and " irrevocable " characteristics do not entail Right of rescission . Adherent of the opinion have provided reasons to proof and strengthen their opinion which to have been accepted by the majority of the scholars of this science . on the other hand a group of jurists and lawyers has argued that right of rescission in revocable contracts shall not impossible or unlikely .. This group have given reasons for its opinion .This article is an attempt to understand whether the right of rescission is applicable to revocable and even quasi-irrevocable contracts. It will review, analyze and examine the mainstream reasonings while considering the counter-arguments . Key words: Right of rescission, Revocable contract, Quasi-irrevocable contract, Revocation of quasi-irrevocable contracts

Bail (Kafala) is an irrevocable contract. Although under the principles applicable to irrevocable contracts, stipulation of option in these contracts is permitted, the legislator has not declared whether such stipulation is valid or void. Therefore, the main question remains what is the remedy of stipulation of option in bail contract? Different opinions have been suggested by Islamic jurists and it is necessary to determine the valid opinion and accordingly, the legal status through comparative study and criticizing the suggested opinions. The purpose of the present paper is to determine whether stipulation of option in bail contract is valid or void according to valid fatawi (verdicts) through descriptive method and destruction of valid jurisprudence sources and library tools. As the most important result of this research we can say that stipulation of option in bail contract is valid and in addition to the stipulation, the contract is valid as well. Therefore, the legislator is recommended to enact an article and declare the validity of stipulation of option in bail contract and end the current controversies.

One of the juridical rules is that of “lack of loss of option with destruction of the object”. This rule has application in irrevocable contracts، so that it could be claimed that this rule overrides in irrevocable contracts in the realm of options. Contents، evidences، terms، realm and effects of this rule haven’t been studied by researchers of jurisprudence and law and as a result this rule hasn’t been made clear and analyzed in the above mentioned dimensions. This reality shows the existing scientific gap in rule of “lack of loss of option with destruction of subject matter”. Thus the present paper seeks to fill this scientific gap and to study and analyze the rule of “lack of loss of option with destruction of subject matter” in terms of contents، evidences، terms، realm. It also raises the questions about it and presents suitable answers derived from the regulations of Islamic law based on juridical sources following the method of descriptive analysis and desk survey.

In law and jurisprudence (fiq’h), the basis, conditions, and duration of the option have been examined. The less discussed matter is the scope of the said option, which raises questions on its plausibility about unilateral juristic acts (Iqa’) and revocable contracts. In this research, by analyzing the basis of the option, it is proved that in principle the said option is possible in all types of contracts unless it is contrary to the contract’s quiddity. This option is not limited to irrevocable Contracts. In unilateral juristic act (Iqa’), because it is effective for two sides of the act, it is possible to use the option. Also, even though a revocable contract can be terminated at any time, its termination based on the option, due to its advantages and effects, justifies the use of the option in revocable contracts.

According to article 1133 of the Iranian civil law, a man can divorce his spouse whenever he wishes, but a woman is deprived of her right to get divorced except for the following cases: osr-o haraj, non-payment of the alimony, and the missing of the spouse for a long time. Though article 1119 of the civil law has provided the parties of marriage contracts or other separate irrevocable contracts with the possibility of adding their own conditions to the contracts, but the indifference of the public to this article and, as a result, the displeasing aftermaths of women's deprival of their right to claim divorce encouraged the High Judicial Council to incorporate some conditions into the formal marriage contracts to provide women with the right to get divorced under certain circumstances, on the one hand, and to give financial support to women who accomplished their matrimonial duties very well, yet their spouses want to divorce them, on the other hand. This paper is to study and discuss over the conditions of marriage contracts with reference to their practical vacuums and, after removing the ambiguities, propose some legal propositions for a better use of these conditions.

Restriction of option of meeting place to the sale contract is treated as incontrovertible in both Shiite jurisprudence and Iranian civil code in such a way that it is considered among necessities of Shiite jurisprudence by some and a matter of consensus by others. However, Malik and Abu Hanifa radically denied the prevailing opinion and Shafi‘i had his own idea in this connection. Since transactions are not dependent upon divine instruction but rather are handed over to the custom of the wise on the one hand and the wise can generally discover criteria of their religious precepts on the other, the present essay explains various opinions of jurists on the option of meeting place reviewing and criticizing their proofs and arguments first, expounds the theory of generalization of option of meeting place along with its evidence and supporters secondly, and, annulling the peculiarity to sale contract, concludes that option of meeting place includes all irrevocable contracts (except marriage) in which the criterion of option of meeting place exists

The issue of divine intention endowment and its ownership have always been controversial among jurists, while most of the predecessors consider endowment as a kind of worship requiring intention. Many of the successors took it dedicated to the recommendation like there are variety of different opinions in determining the owner of what is endowed. On the other hand, most of the recent jurists consider endowment as an irrevocable contract and take the irrevocability a reason to exclude intention. While most of the former jurists didn’t mention the contract. This study, written in a descriptive - analytical method and library style, tries to specify and analyze opinions and reasons logically and briefly. From the viewpoint of this study, solving the issue depends on the precise lexicology of the word “Charity” in the traditions. No thing that “endowment” was expressed “charity” in most of the traditions and early Islamic centuries along with some evidence differentiating endowment from other charity instances, leads to realizing that endowment is a kind of necessary persuasion requiring intention which makes it irrevocable and the endowed property after endowment enters the credit ownership of God. This study also indicates how endowment changed from formers’ conditioned charity with intention to latters’ unconditioned contract with intention.

Due to the wide scope of compromise contract, in addition to most nominate contracts, innominate contracts can be concluded with title of compromise contract. But is any agreement outside the nominate contracts necessarily considered to be compromise contract and does it not need to be intended as a compromise contract or its content and its nature to conclude it? Does compromise have its own particular content that must be intended like the other nominate contract, or is it characterized by not having a framework? Some jurists believe that the compromise contract has a concept equivalent to article 10 of civil law and notwithstanding the compromise contract which covers all innominate contracts, article 10 is not required. In addition to opposing the viewpoint of synonymy of compromise contract and innominate contracts with religious jurisprudence and civil law who regard compromise as having a specific content. For the following reasons this view cannot be accepted and compromise contract and innominate contracts must be considered two different concepts. Firstly: A type of agreement can be considered as compromise contract in which outcome of contract includes agreement, not every agreement out of nominate contract. Secondly: Compromise contract can be substitute of the nominate contracts, while innominate contracts cannot. Thirdly: Compromise contract is necessarily irrevocable contract and innominate contracts may be revocable contract. Fourthly: In compromise based on negligence, detailed knowledge is not required, but in innominate contracts, essential conditions, including detailed knowledge, are required. The only instance in which an innominate contract can be considered as compromise is one that denotes resolving or preventing conflict

Preliminary agreement means an agreement that result from preliminary negotiations process for obtaining the ground of final and main contract conclusion. These preliminary agreements treat as steps towards achievement to the final contract and these preliminary agreements have different names and different forms. In respect of legal analysis, we are encounter with this question: whether preliminary agreements are enforceable or not. In litigations happening around enforceability of preliminary agreements, similar judicial precedent did not exist in legal systems. In England law general approach is that preliminary agreements are not enforceable while U.S.A law trend to enforceability of them. In civil law countries preliminary agreements are enforceable. In Iran legal system if a preliminary agreement have all of essential terms expressed in article 10 of the Iran civil code and this agreement be considered an example of that article or be conditioned with irrevocable contract, will be enforceable. Otherwise such agreement considered as an independent condition that jurisprudently is not enforceable. American courts i pay attention to many factors as express statement, partial performance; open terms, typically written contracts and field of negotiations. Practicing these factors in Iran courts can be useful for clearing the ambiguities of Iran contract legal system.

In the framework of Islamic Sharia, those types of financial instruments can be used in the Islamic capital market that fully meet the criteria and rules of jurisprudence and are useful from an economic point of view. Jurisprudential standards mean the general and private jurisprudential standards of contracts. In the article "Analysis of the nature and function of social trading from the point of view of compliance with Sharia" it was stated that social trading due to having the conditions of correctness of contracts and being free from jurisprudential obstacles such as, the unjust enrichment, uncertainty, loss and damage, gambling and usury is an irrevocable contract. and Its provisions must be adhered to. Examining the economic function of these transactions from the point of view of micro and macroeconomic criteria also indicated that social trading, in addition to being in line with the diverse goals and attitudes of investors, are in line with economic growth and justice, and it can be used in the financial policies of government. These transactions that affect the efficiency and liquidity of the market; By increasing the amount of investment in the capital market, increasing total production, fair distribution of income, curbing inflation and attracting foreign capital contribute to economic growth and the development of the capital market. Therefore, the correct use of this instrument in the capital market of Islamic countries is a great opportunity, and its use can help to improve the development and deepening of the Iranian capital market. For this purpose, in the current research, the possibility of adapting this instrument to the contracts approved by Islamic jurisprudence is investigated by the jurisprudential analysis method. Jurisprudential results indicate that the potential of these instruments can be used in Iran's capital market by using certain contracts such as reward, advocacy and lease.