Feasibility Study of "Fraud against the Law" through "Right to Imprisonment"

Because legal doctrine and jurisprudence have described the right to imprisonment as a guarantee tool to prevent breaches of contractual obligations (the same as the performance of the same obligation), the correct recognition of this right is doubly important. In jurisprudence and consequently in law among jurists and jurists, there is a well-known theory about the right to imprisonment, according to which an initial inherent right has been accepted for its holder. Article 377 of the Civil Code of Iran is also regulated accordingly. According to this idea, the parties to the exchange contract (both testamentary and possessive) enjoy the right to imprisonment independently and at the same time and simultaneously, on the basis of which they can refuse to fulfill their obligations. But another reading can be proposed, according to which this right is presented as a "defense and objection" for a person who fulfills his obligations against someone who has violated his obligations. The result of this research is that the second inference is correct and the first inference has several drawbacks, including the fact that if we consider the right to imprisonment as the primary inherent right, by adapting the principles and conditions of the rule of "fraud against the law" on It can be an example of a "rule of law fraud" in its general sense, as it creates the possibility for individuals to use it as a tool to achieve their fraudulent goals and motives. This is also denied by the rational rule of "violation of purpose" because an act that involves violation of purpose is not approved by law.