Examining the Validity of Waiver of All Rights for Unilateral Termination with Emphasis on the No-Harm Rule

The necessity and strength of the contract is considered as one of the basic principles in transactions. Although the basis of legal laws in line with fundamental principles such as the principle of necessity is to try to strengthen the contract and prevent its unnecessary dissolution, sometimes the principle of necessity can create adverse effects for the parties.relinquishing all kinds of options, including the option of deception, even to the highest degree" is included as a term of contract. However, including different terms without knowing the consequences or signing the contract based only on good faith in the other party is reckless and irresponsible, because in the event of a dispute by signing only the provisions of the contract, the signatory is responsible and obliged to accept the consequences. This means that after accomplishing the contract, the parties to the transaction cannot terminate the contract under the pretext of fraud and loss. Since in some cases this term becomes a tool to abuse the right and basis of the loss, in law, whenever there is a discussion of the loss and gross damages and compensation, the no- harm rule comes to mind so that by the help of this powerful lever, the victim is able to compensate for the damage. In this article, adopting the analytical-inferential method and documenting the fortieth Principle of the Constitution and emphasizing the no-harm rule, the denial of validity of the condition of " all kinds of options relinquishment " has been examined and investigated.