The unification of Judgement decision of the Supreme Court No. 810 of the Supreme Court -in addition to legal effects- it has significant economic effects because this judgement decision regards the effect of the termination of the first transaction on the subsequent transactions, even despite the ignorance of the subsequent buyers regarding the existence of the right of termination in the first contract. However, despite the existence of legal criticisms regarding this, there is no economic analysis in law and economics literature. Therefore, this article has tried to answer the question- while referring to the general principles governing the economic analysis of law and looking at the equivalence theory of Dr. Jafari Langroudi-how efficient and compatible is the discussed judgement decision with economic principles? The hypothesis of this article is that parts of the judgement decision no. 810 are considered ineffective due to negative economic consequences and are incompatible with some economic principles; This clearly shows that the economic analysis was not taken into account in issuing the said judgement decision. This research is presented with a qualitative method and the use of library study tools, in the form of two parts: the first part describes the judgement decision no. 810; and the second part analyzes it from the perspective of the economic principles and equivalence theory of Dr. Jafari Langroudi. In the end, specific short-term and long-term solutions are suggested to the groups benefiting from the results of this article.