Contract with a Suspensive Condition versus Testament with an Emphasis on Imam Khomeini’s Viewpoints

Contract with a suspensive condition is a contract whose efficacy, based on what has been mentioned in it, is subordinated to a future uncertain event. It is one of the commonly used legal acts. However, there is difference of opinion on its validity among jurisprudents; nevertheless, there is no doubt on validity of the testament that depends upon death of the person. The principal question of this study is: What is the difference between a contract with suspensive condition and a testament?To find an appropriate answer to the above question through a descriptive-analytical method, we have reviewed details of contract with a suspensive condition and compared and contrasted it with testament. Findings indicate that despite similarities, there are essential differences between the two. In essence, contract with a suspensive condition is a type of contract but jurisprudents like Imam Khomeini consider testament as a unilateral legal act. This viewpoint is acceptable in terms of heirs when one of the parties passes away. Moreover, there are sharp differences between the two, such as withdrawal by will or force in testament, unlike the contract with a suspensive condition, inherent suspension of the object of consideration in testament as well as the source of the suspensive obligation. This is because in contract with a suspensive condition it is the will of the parties that matters while in testament it is the rule of law and the nature of the testament that count.