The Effect of Option of Deception on the Rent Set by a Deceiver

If the buyer or seller has suffered an intolerable loss in the transaction, the deceived person can terminate the transaction and make up for his loss by exercising the option of deception. In this case, the return of the recompense or their substitute to the transaction parties, even in the face of financial appropriation, will be mandatory; depending on whether the transferred or non-transferred appropriation is permissible or necessary, etc., different rulings will be designated on them. One of the most important derivatives of this issue is the option of deception on the lease that has been made by the deceiver in the period between the contract and the deception. On the other hand, deceiver has rented it when he was the owner of the object, and the termination of the lease due to the termination of the sale is incompatible with the tenant’s rights, and on the other hand, the continuation of lease can lead to the loss of the deceived. Imāmī jurists have tried to resolve this issue by citing matters such as the necessity of unstable ownership, the compliance the benefits from the property, the principle of ḍamān al-yad (compensation for damage to property held under trust), the rule of action, and so on. The great differences among the jurists and the silence of the law in this regard elucidate the significance of this study. In this article, while expressing and criticizing the existing opinions in this field, according to the jurisprudential basis of the option of deception and the necessity of the relevant jurisprudential rules, the theory of “the need for a lease and guarantee of deceiver in relation to benefits after revocation” has been accepted and strengthened.