عنوان مقاله [English]
The terms of contract plays an important role in defining, disclosing or limiting rights and obligations of the parties to the contract and the object of condition is effective in increasing and decreasing the value and price of transaction. In the event that condition not filfulled, the economic balance of the contract will be distrupted.in this cace where is not possible compelling to execute the condition, the prevailing point of view in imamiye jurisprudence which is also evident in civil low, considers that termination of contract is only way of compensation. they have relied of this view for some reasons such as: the lack of balance between discriptions and terms with the contract price, the exceptional nature of the compensation (arsh), to be something qualification and spirituality of the object of term, and the monopoly causes of quarantees in islamic juricprudence.
Despite the famous idea of the non-distribution contract price on the provisio by some jurists "based on reason such as capable to being owned of term in the custom, to be component of condition in the common intent of parties and evaluating the value of condition as eliminating hostility" comments on possibility of claiming the price of condition are mentioned in this case.
In this survey by examining the basics and evidences of both views it seams in cases where the object of condition has an independent financial value and the person in whose favor the condition is hurts with rescinding the contract demanding price of condition is possible.