According to the jurisprudential rule of “Waste during Option Period is the Liability of the Party without Option”, if the object of sale is wasted during the period in which a party is entitled to cancel the contract, the other party who is deprived of cancellation option will compensate for it. Iranian Legislator has adopted this rule and has included this rule in article 453 of Civil Code. In order to interpret this legal article, jurisprudential premises should be taken into account.This rule is contrary to ownership requirement, as upon conclusion of mutual contract, the seller becomes the owner of the price and the customer becomes the owner of the sold object and waste of property should be vested in its owner. Thus, when interpreting this rule, certainty will be a sufficiency prerequisite. In order not to have waste of property vested in non-owners, jurisprudents justify that one moment before waste, contract is cancelled and the property’s title is returned to the seller who will be liable for its waste, like the rule of Waste of the Object of Sale before its Receipt. Some others consider this rule as a sequel to the rule of Exchange Guarantee before Receipt.This rule doesn’t apply to all options except for option of meeting place, option of animals and option of conditions, collectively known as time options. If in a sales contract, a party has option of cancellation and the other party lacks such an option and the sold property is wasted, the liability is vested in the party without such an option. It is noteworthy that on the face of it, the rule includes waste of price; but, with regard to the narrations, it doesn’t include waste of price. To be added, this rule doesn’t apply to general contracts which don’t include definite objects of sale.