Based on the predominant viewpoint among scholars, jurisprudents, and fundamentalists, it is possible to rely on invalid narrations such as "Zaif", "Morsal", "Monghate" and genersllg any types of reasons lacking argument to proclaim unnecessary decrees.This viewpoint which is known as the method of "Tasaamoh dar Adelleye sonan" (negligence in Reasoning Traditions) is based on "Ahadith Man Balaq" more than anything else.By carefully studying narrstions and further concentrating on their senses and also reviewing other reasons of the method, it is realized that none of such comments and reasons are led by the claims of the scholars and therefore, the aforementioned method lacks validity and requires efficiency. 

I read with great interest the article by Heydarian et al.The authors had conducted a clinical trial and found that zinc supplementation did not benefit clinical manifestations of acute bronchiolitis. The study is well described, but there are few points that need comment.The authors described that bottles of drug and placebo were similar in size and shape. However, it is well known that, the most important factor in zinc trials have been problem in blinding due to bad taste of zinc salts. There is also no description of the adverse events in the study (even in the zinc group), which is really surprising. So, author’s description of double-blinding might have been compromised, with resultant affection of the findings of the study. The authors also excluded children with pneumonia. But, how did they exclude children with viral pneumonia (as both are difficult to distinguish clinically and radiologically)? This is an important question, as it has been found that zinc might not be effective in viral pneumonia. It is also not clear, whether the person responsible for the administration of the intervention and evaluation of clinical signs of bronchiolitis is same or different. Because, if both have been done by the same person, then it might have also affected blinding and resultant data collection. These factors question the validity of the result.

An ineffective condition is among the invalid conditions that do not nullify the contract, as mentioned in Paragraph 2 of Article 232 of the Civil Code. However, the law does not explicitly specify the criteria for considering a condition as ineffective, or its definition, examples, foundations, and enforcement in contracts. Given the disagreement among legal scholars whether or not a right of termination is established in the case of inserting an ineffective condition, analyzing this issue is of high importance. This is because if such a right exists, the promisee would have the right to annul the original contract. The present study, conducted through a descriptive-analytical method and based on the perspectives of Imāmī jurists and legal experts, concludes that an ineffective condition is one that neither brings profit nor serves to avert potential harm to the promisee or a third party. Also, the concept of benefit is not limited to financial gain, but also includes spiritual benefits and such benefits can remove a condition from being considered ineffective. In recognizing this type of condition, a combined objective-subjective criterion must be employed, and the condition enforcement includes that if it is ineffective from the outset, no right of termination is granted. Hower, if it becomes ineffective during the action and affects the economic value of the contract, a right of termination is established.