Examining Conditions Contrary to the Nature of the Contract in Imami Jurisprudence and Iranian Statutory Laws
Authors: Shikh farangic , Cafa Mohammad Ali , Bahrehmand Mehdi 
Published: September 2024

In jurisprudential terminology, a condition is an auxiliary obligation created by the parties to a contract. From the perspective of jurists, a condition is binding when explicitly stated within the contract, and this is referred to as an implied condition within the contract. In such an implied condition, a specific characteristic of an action (or omission) or its result is expected from the other party. Since implied conditions within a contract, like the contract itself, are approved by the Sacred Lawgiver, for such a condition to be valid and to entail specific effects and rulings, certain criteria and principles must be considered regarding its validity or invalidity. Implied conditions within a contract, in terms of compliance with or deviation from general principles of condition validity, are divided into two categories: valid and invalid conditions. Occasionally, a condition that does not meet the general requirements of condition validity may also invalidate the contract itself. This paper examines the nature of a contract and, consequently, the conditions that contradict the nature of the contract—conditions that, according to most jurists, invalidate the contract—from the perspectives of jurisprudence and law. A condition refers to a future event that the parties make the occurrence of a legal effect contingent upon. Article 233, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code regards the compatibility of the condition with the nature of the contract as one of the specific requirements for the condition's validity. Distinguishing between a condition that contradicts the essence of the contract and a condition that contradicts religious principles is a significant issue, for which no clear standard has been presented. Some Imami jurists have considered the reason for the invalidity of a condition contrary to the essence of the contract to be the implied indication of the commandment "fulfill the contracts". Some researchers in jurisprudence and law have criticized this reasoning, arguing that it leads to the categorization of such conditions within the realm of illegitimate conditions, which increases the frequency of errors in identifying specific instances. A condition is defined as something whose absence necessitates non-existence, but its existence does not necessarily imply existence. The nature of a contract, the essence of the contract, and the scope of the contract are divided into distinct categories, with contradiction meaning opposition and inconsistency between the two parties. A contradictory condition is one that is so different from the nature of the contract that it cannot be reconciled, and each of them rejects and nullifies the other. Such a condition is deemed invalid and disrupts the contract. The term "nature" refers to the implication and demand, and the intention of the contracting parties is to achieve the meaning of the contract. The essence of the contract, the nature of the contract, and the scope of the contract are divided into distinct categories. The essence of the contract is an effect that arises directly from the nature of the contract itself, and the contract itself is the firm binding of something to another, which is inseparable. The term "contract" refers to the formation of a contract between two parties who have a legal relationship and are connected by it. In this research, which has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, I have examined the conditions contrary to the nature of the contract in Imami jurisprudence and Iranian statutory laws. The findings of the research indicate that in Imami jurisprudence and Iranian statutory law, a condition is considered contrary to the nature of the contract when it contradicts religious principles and the consensus, where the content of the condition conflicts with the content and substance of the contract. Since the laws of our country are derived from Imami jurisprudence, they do not correspond to the laws of foreign countries concerning conditions.