The survey of Forbidden Effect on transactions from perspective of jurisprudence and Iranian law

The scholars of the fundamentals disagree on the effect of prohibition on trading, but are less convinced of the effect of prohibition on trading. Most of them believe that when it comes to the result or the cause it causes the transaction to be canceled and corrupted. From a legal point of view, the legislature sometimes invalidates the guarantee of enforcement and sometimes does not. In some cases, he also expresses his disagreement with the act by saying, "Forbidden, not allowed, should not, ..." In this case, the question arises whether the mere entry of the transaction will invalidate the transaction and not affect the agreement of the parties? Or, on the contrary, in keeping with the principle of authenticity for the sake of the explicit mandate of the legislator, should the transaction be considered correct? In this analytical and descriptive article, it has been examined that the legal difference between the prohibition effect when it belongs to the underlying conditions and the basis of the transaction is different from the cases where the prohibition applies to conditions other than the essentials and to the extent applicable. Depending on the category and criteria presented, it is sometimes a guarantee of non-cancellation and sometimes other guarantees such as cancellation and even ineffective. But, in principle, there is basically a duty to forbid impeachment.