This research, with a fundamental-applied approach and by using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the jurisprudential-legal validity of general agency in Imami jurisprudence and Iranian law, by criticizing and reviewing judgments, in order to provide a solution for avoiding irrevocable general agency.A general agency, which is concluded in the two forms of revocable or irrevocable, and can be general in terms of subject matter or disposal, or both, given the extent of an agent's authority to make all kinds of possible disposals in both the financial and non-financial affairs of the principal, has been a subject of debate and controversy in various ways, especially with regard to the possibility of abuse by the agent, and has become one of the main challenges faced by the judicial system today.
A study of Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law shows that some Islamic jurists and authorities on Iranian law, relying on reasons such as loss, harm, and ambiguity, consider general agency invalid in terms of disposal, although most Islamic jurists consider it to be valid, taking into account the need to observe the principal's interests in this type of agency; a rule that is also understood from Articles 660 and 667 of the Civil Code and the binding precedent rendered by the General Board of the Supreme Court No. 847 - 14 ⁄ 5 ⁄ 2024.However, general agency that are concluded in an irrevocable manner to perform all disposals and actions in all matters related to the principal, especially if the principal has relinquished his right to perform an act contrary to it, are invalid and null due to their similarity to granting guardianship and not agency, as well as their deprivation of the freedom and conflict with the principal's integrity and freedom and incompatibility with public order; a view that has also been confirmed in some judgements.The same approach is also defensible in the case where a person has become another person's agent, generally and for an indefinite period, to take all actions, and by relinquishment of his right to terminate the agent contract. Accordingly, it is suggested that judicial precedent should deal with such agencies in order to control and monitor contracts contrary to public order.