The legal status of agreements following a dissolved contract has always been a place of dispute. On the one hand, the security of transactions requires that these transactions are stable, and on the other hand, when a prior agreement becomes void, the deterioration of subsequent contracts is inevitable. In Iranian law, the differences between legal doctrines have been reflected in the judicial decisions, and this has led to the issuance of Unification Judgment No. 810 of the general assembly of the supreme court. The current research argues, using the explanation and the opposite meaning of the aforementioned precedent verdict, that the existence of the right of treating the contract as repudiated, whether legal or contractual, does not prevent the possession of a person who becomes the owner as a result of a contract. However, if another person acquires subsequent ownership of the same property as a result of a subsequent contract, his transaction remains valid until the application of the right of termination of the original seller. Also, suppose the holder of the right of revocation terminates the first agreement. In that case, the subsequent transactions will also be dissolved from the time of the revocation of the first transaction, unless the person who became the owner as a result of the second transaction was ignorant of the existence of the right of revocation in the first transaction, and as a normal person, it is not possible for him to acquire knowledge.