Investigate the legal status of contracts resulting from the abuse of urgency

Nowadays, pressure in concluding contracts is less visible in the form of physical reluctance and violence, but for various internal and external reasons, people's satisfaction in concluding a contract is impaired. According to jurists, the existence of emergency conditions in concluding a contract does not harm the validity of the contract, even though it impairs the individual's consent to the transaction; But if the same emergency situation is abused and an unfair contract is imposed on the victim, this contract can not be supported. Due to the silence of our legislator in this regard, jurists have proposed a guarantee of various actions such as invalidity, right of termination, non-influence and the ability to modify or cancel the contract for this type of contract. In Imami jurisprudence, although the popular opinion emphasizes the validity of this type of contract, but some jurists have proposed the invalidity of the contract regarding the excess amount of the proverb, which has been opposed by other jurists. Citing the rule of negation of hardship, such contracts have been invalidated when it leads to hardship in excess of the proverbial price. This view, which is a kind of contract modification, while responding to other criticisms of similar theories, can well secure the rights of the distressed person.