Possession of the Object of Option in the Civil Code and Imami Jurisprudence (A study of the Bases of the Articles 454 and 455 in the Civil Code)

In the articles 454 and 455, the Civil Code has discussed various kinds of possession of the object of options and expressed the point based on two different assumptions. In the first part of the two articles, as a general rule, all conditions existing in the time of option have been considered as being correct, and the consequent cancellation of the contract has been said to be of no impact on them. Under the articles 454 and 455, the legislator has proceeded to discuss the statement under the assumption that there is no condition about transference or conversion [of the object of the contract]; and has said that such conditioned transference or conversion is rejected. Concerning the verbal complicacy of these articles on the one hand and serious difference in opinions of the jurists concerning this point, it is difficult to specify the basis chosen by the Civil Code. What that is inferred from the articles relevant to this point in the Civil Code as well as from the juridical background of this point is that concerning changes relevant to options, the Civil Code has followed the views of jurists who have made distinctions between legal optons and contractual options and are of the opinion that in the latter kind, in which it has been emphasized that the object of sale will not change, changes in other than options are not possible. Thus, the view of those legalists who are of the opinion that in the revocable sale, change in options is possible. And if the contract is cancelled, possession will become unenforceable is not consistent with the Civil Code.