Background and purpose: The collapse of contractual obligations is one of the topics of discussion and controversy in the law of obligations. The purpose of this article is to investigate the effect of permission on the collapse of contractual obligations due to economic problems.
 
Materials and Methods: The present article is theoretical and the analytical descriptive method is used. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.
 
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the text, honesty and trustworthiness are observed
.
Findings: The findings indicate that the previous authorization for possession, which is bound to the absence of a guarantee, is not a muscat of the guarantee, but an obstacle and a remover of the guarantee. In Iranian law, under the conditions of non-execution of the contract, it is possible to resort to the rule of cairo and  hardship.
 
Conclusion: The security of the possessions of the authorized person means that he is not responsible when he is not at fault on the one hand and that he is responsible in case of violation and excesses on the other hand. The authorized person has a security bond and is responsible for compensating damages only in case of violation. But sometimes it is possible that the person who gives permission (and the person who is authorized by permission) stipulates with each other that even if no fault is committed.