One issue related to the rescission of contracts is whether an option should be applied promptly or it can be delayed until one of the causes for the extinction of the option arises. Consensus has not been reached among Muslim jurists and legal scholars on the topic. Due to the identical nature of options and the practical effects of the discussion, the legal opinions adopted in Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian civil code should be revised through analysis. Out of the multiple options, promptness of four is expressly mentioned in the civil code, and this is the reason behind the lack of consensus and disagreement. Each of the proponents and opponents of promptness in the Islamic jurisprudence, have their own reasons that cannot be absolutely rejected or accepted. Therefore, based on the fundamentals of contracts law, social and economic impacts and other related circumstances, one opinion should be adopted and applied for all options. The goal of the article is to study this issue.

In Iranian and American law, Restitution; as the most important effect of rescission, has been determined similarly antecedent to rescission. In iranian law, first, islamic lawyers has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution and analyzed their effects while in American legal system, due to some problems and lack of unified judicial procedure, lawyers and some theorists in last years has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution. Moreover, rescission has based on two theories in iranian legal system; Bilateral Consent and Do No Harm (LA ZARAR). In the other hand, American legal system has been based on unjust enrichment theory. In this article, first, the process of recognition of the right in two legal systems has inspected and later, the base of rescission has compared between two legal systems. The process in two legal systems (although the process in American law has happened with a long historical distance) demonstrate that due to lack of coherent theory about rescission and thereupon lack of unified Judicial procedure in common law, law theorist coming close to general theory of rescission in written legal systems

Right of rescission is one of the main topics of contract law in Islamic jurisprudence as well as in Iranian Law. Jurists and lawyers have devoted part of their books to this topic. The issue discussed in this area is the scope of right of rescission، called " necessary contracts" by jurists and legal scholars. In other words، legal acts lacking the description "contract" and "necessary" are exempted from being subject to the right of rescission. Although supporters of this opinion have put forward reasons to justify it and it is seemingly logical، a careful look at reasons given، criticisms، principles of right of rescission، rules of contract law and principles of interpretation proves the opposite view and not the famous one. This article examines famous and opposite opinions by conducting a critical analysis.

Full compensation for lost is not usually achieved by citing a loss to one of the remedies of breach of contract. Rather, it is sometimes necessary to aggregate between the above remedies. The sum of the compensation with other reactions to the breach of the covenant is very vague given the legislator's silence on its enforce ability and lack of judicial procedure. Regardless of the feasibility of this sum and its enforcement practices, the possibility of this sum is very important, given the general legal principles underlying most laws, and these principles are used to resolve ambiguities. In other words, is it possible that, in the use of lost to one of the remedies arising from breach of contract, such as rescission, and failure to full compensation, we will give right to lost to use other remedies, such as claiming of loss or amending the contract, or partial rescission of the contract, or specific performance and claim of loss between two or more remedies to full compensations for their damages, collect and use simultaneously.

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.

The option of marriage rescission is one of the rights that civil law enacts for the couples following Shia jurisprudence and each spouse due to some defects in the other party can rescind the marriage contract. Of course, today with medical achievements, some of the defects that cause marriage rescission are treatable, and following treatment, the person recovers his/her health. However, a question which is raised is whether following the defect or disease treatment, the option to rescission created before the recovery will be abolished or not. To answer this question, there exist two approaches; the approach of most precedent Shia jurisprudents who do not think of treatment as abortive of the option to rescission and emphasize the revocation right even after the treatment. In contrast, some current jurisprudents and even some antecedents who have affirmed that through disease recovery, its resulting detriment also ends, and there will be no reason to continue the option to rescission. This paper deals with these two approaches, and regarding civil law condition, evaluates the accuracy of each of these two views.

Although rescission and reversion both represent voluntary dissolution in transactions in a general sense, there exists a fundamental distinction between the two in terms of substance. They share similarities in certain requiremets and consequences, but this resemblance should not be construed as an equivalence of their true nature. The concepts of "right of rescission" and "permission of reversion" differ in terms of their essence, foundations, and application. Therefore, this article employs a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach to analyze and examine "rescission" and "reversion" from the perspectives of their nature, characteristics, requirements, and applications. The findings indicate that the establishment of the right of rescission is based on maximizing the freedom of the contracting parties to mitigate harm and is a legal provision. In contrast, the purpose of establishing reversion is to secure the welfare of individuals and provide easement by the legislator. Reversion cannot be subsumed under assets, whether financial, non-financial, valuable, or tangible, as it is not a right, and the will of the parties does not play a role in its creation; rather, it is established solely by the command of Sharia and the law. Generally, rescission is enforceable in all binding contracts except for specific options like the option of the meeting-place, option of animal, and option of delayed payment of the price, which are limited to sales and considered exceptional, restricted to gifts, wills, and divorce. In contrast to the right of rescission, the permission of reversion is personal, non-waivable, and non-transferable.

One of the critical issues of electronic contracts relates to their withdrawal. The essential question of recent research is which methods can withdraw electronic contracts. The method of this research in finding mentioned question answers that the article on Iranian E-commerce code has put the base of comparative study for presenting the withdrawal methods of electronic contracts and solving the existing ambiguity. It has acquired and presented the withdrawal methods of electronic contracts on the strength of intellectual analysis and legal inference. It has been concluded that there are two physical and electronic methods for cancelling electronic contracts. Since this research is the first scientific search in issue and practical research, its results will be used by law scholars, attorneys, judges of courts, and arbitrators in interpreting the articles of the E-commerce code regarding withdrawal methods of electronic contracts.

In a family related case, the husband, relying upon sound medical records, brought a case against her wife to rescind the marriage on the basis of "her wife having two major deficiencies since the marriage took place, i.e.: her privacy being too short for intercourse, and her womb being too small to room a foetus". The Iranian Court of Appeal argued that pursuant to the Article 10 of the Iranian Constitutional Law, the stability of the family must be respected as far as possible, and so, the articles allowing the rescission of the marriage must be interpreted restrictedly. The Court continued that the case was none of "the option to rescind for defect (Article 1123 of Iranian Civil Code), the option to rescind for the violation of the marriage terms (Article 1128 of Iranian Civil Code) and the option to rescind for fraud (Article 439 of Iranian Civil Code)". Accordingly, The Court dismissed the case. The Appeal Court did so, notwithstanding that a legal branch of the Iranian Supreme Courts had already overruled such a judgment issued by another branch of the Appeal Courts in the very same case. That is why the case was brought before the Body of the Legal Branches of the Supreme Courts to be decided. In its non-binding judgment, the Body, mainly focusing on the rationale behind the marriage between two young individuals, ruled that the case was an instance of the violation of the implied terms of the marriage which according to the Article 1128 of Iranian Civil Code, gives rise to the rescission. The Body, hence, overruled the Appeal Court's Judgment for the Defendant (wife), and, in its non-binding judgment, held that the Claimant (husband) has a right to rescind the marriage without any obligation on his side to pay the marriage portion, and sent the case to a different branch of Appeal Courts to be judged in the light of the Body's decision. This essay is to find the bases of the Body's decision in Fiqh (Shi't Law), Iranian law and the general principles of the law of contracts.