Legal Feasibility of the Fall of the Option of Deception by Paying the Difference of the Price

There is no doubt that the right of cancelation of the contract is created for the defrauded person when the deception becomes evident, but sometimes it is seen that the defrauder pay him the difference before the cancelation of the contract. The main question in the present research is that does the fight of the defrauded person disappear by paying of extra price by the defrauder or his right of cancelation remains? The answer of the article 421 of the Civil Code is negative and indicates that the option of the defrauded person remains. Reviewing the issue, the author criticizes the ruling contained in Article 421 and believes that by compensation of the damage by the defrauder the option of the defrauded person will be overthrown. This theory is consistent with the principle of the necessity of contracts and the exceptional nature of the right of option and other legal Articles, including Article 424 of the Commercial Code. It is also implicit in the jurisprudential rules such as “principle of no harm” and “the rule: when the impediment is removed the prohibited will remove”.