Analysis and Examination of the Transition from Nullity to Non-Enforceability in Transactions Conflicting with Third-Party Rights: A Critique of Iranian Judicial Practice and the Presentation of an Analytical Model Based on Imami Jurisprudence

Abstract

One of the most challenging issues in Iranian civil law concerns the determination of the legal nature of contracts of sale that conflict with the rights of third parties. The prevailing judicial practice in Iranian courts, relying on restrictive interpretations of public order and the provisions of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act, demonstrates a strong tendency to declare such transactions intrinsically null and void. Although this judicial approach is intended to safeguard the legal security of third parties and preserve the authority and effectiveness of judicial decisions, in practice it may result in the impairment of the rights of good-faith purchasers, increased uncertainty in real estate and property markets, and the neglect of fundamental principles of Imami jurisprudence, including the principle of presumption of validity (asālat al-ṣiḥḥa) and the principle of no harm (lā ḍarar). Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study demonstrates that the distinction between nullity and non-enforceability in Imami jurisprudence provides a more effective framework for managing such conflicts. The findings indicate that, in transactions conflicting with third-party rights, particularly in cases such as the sale of mortgaged property or property subject to a non-alienation clause, the contract should be regarded as valid but unenforceable insofar as it prejudices or extinguishes the third party’s right, rather than as intrinsically null and void. While preserving the priority rights of third parties, this analytical model provides good-faith purchasers with a stronger legal position for claiming damages and enhances transactional security. By critically examining existing unifying judicial precedents and advisory opinions, the present article proposes a new model grounded in Imami jurisprudence that may serve as a basis for reforming judicial practice and formulating new guidelines within the Supreme Court of Iran.