Nullity of Forced Contract and Criticizing the Idea of Its Non-influence with the Approach to Amendment of the Articles 209 and 346 of the Civil Code

The dominant jurisprudents believe that if the forced person satisfies with the contract after removal of reluctance, the contract will be effective. Supporting their claim, they have advanced reasons such as the generality of the verse “fulfill your obligations”, consensus, existence of the intention in the word of the forced contract, the non-condition of the contract with intention and resemblance to the unauthorized sale. Criticizing this view and rejecting the reasons of the dominant jurists, some jurisprudents, in contrast, have said that the contract of the forced person is void and does not give credit for his next satisfaction. After rejecting reasons of the dominant jurisprudents, these jurisprudents have invoked to reasons such as the general meaning of the verse “except there be trading by your mutual agreement” and the rule “all contracts depend on intention”, and the rule of non-existential authorization of previous state. Following the view of dominant jurists, the civil law in Articles 209 and 346, makes the forced contract ineffective, and regards its subsequent satisfaction as an agent of its effectiveness. According to the findings of this research that has been done in a descriptiveanalytic method, the forced contract is regarded as those contracts that are lack of intention and consequently is void. Thus, in accordance with the general rules governing the contract, it is proposed to amend the Article 209 so that the subsequent satisfaction is ineffective and Article 346 so that the void of the forced contract is specified.