certainty and clarity of the object of transaction: a comparative study of theiranian and french laws

According to paragraph 3 of article 190 of the civil law, one of the basic requirements of thevalidity of the transaction is the certainty of the transaction. therefore, the transaction should not beuncertain between several parties and the parties to the contract must address the same issue, for example,if one pledges to transfer one vehicle or one house to another within six months or undertake to transfer toeither of those who choose to pledge that obligation, with due regard to the conditions and provisions ofarticle 190 of civil law has not legal influence and credibility, it is a case of risk transactions. on the otherhand, in article 216 of civil law it says: the object of a transaction should not be ambiguous .... theobject of the transaction must include conditions such as its clarity and certainty. its determination isbased on the public order and the building of reason. hence, its violation will invalidate the contract.french civil law also briefly mentions the clarity of the object of transaction and the subject of theobligation, but does not comply with iranian civil law as to the amount and scientific scope required inthe transaction. according to article 1108 of french civil law, there are four essential conditions for thevalidity and influence of any agreement and contract, including the object and the particular object thatconstitutes the subject of the obligation. there is no mention of clarity limits and determining the subjectof the contract in this case. also pursuant to article 1129 of french civil law, this does not need to havecertain quantity traded at the time of the contract, but it should be sufficient that it can be ascertainedlater. contrary to the iranian law that the object of the transaction should be clear when entering intocontract including its amount for both parties and post-transaction determinability is not enough.therefore, from the total of 1108 and 1129 of french civil law, it can be concluded that limits ofannouncing basic features include the kind and the type of certain property. what is being examined inthis study will be studying the clarity and certainty of the object of transactions in iranian and french law.the importance and necessity of doing research is one of the most important issues in jurisprudence andlaw, but there is less to be done in comparative studies with other countries, including france. hence, thissubject has to be studied separately.but the question that will be discussed in this study is whether buying uncertain object or anambiguous object will be realized. and we examine and compare it in iranian and french law. in thiscase, we have two hypotheses:1. because it is vague and uncertain, it is unrealistic in terms of rational precision; so the object oftransaction is also unrealistic; in other words, the transaction becomes without subject-matter.2. knowing the object of the transaction is necessary to the extent that its essential scope and dimensionsare clarified. if both parties are described in such a way that the transaction or custom knows its maindimensions, it must be sufficiently judged.