Background and Objective: The “option condition” is a pivotal tool for contract management; however, Article 401 of the Iranian Civil Code mandates the nullity of both the condition and the contract if the duration remains unspecified. This study aims to analyze the jurisprudential foundations of this rigor and assess its compatibility with the requirements of the digital economy to examine the necessity of revising traditional interpretations of temporal ambiguity and the rule of Gharar in smart contracts.

Materials and Methods: This is a theoretical research conducted through a descriptive-analytical methodology.

Findings: The findings indicate that distinguishing between the jurisprudential nature of the option condition and the agreement upon it challenges the notion of absolute nullity. In blockchain-based smart contracts, “If-Then” logic replaces calendar time, and silence regarding duration does not necessarily imply Gharar-based ambiguity. Furthermore, traditional interpretations of Article 401 conflict with the principles of validity and bindingness in modern transactions and digital commercial customs, thereby jeopardizing contractual stability.

Ethical Considerations: Throughout all stages of this research, honesty, integrity, and the originality of the texts have been strictly observed.

Conclusion: The study concludes that a “customary duration” or “reasonable duration” should be the criterion instead of absolute nullity. Recognizing programming codes as an explicit expression of execution timing in smart contracts prevents the instability of large-scale transactions. It is suggested that through a narrow interpretation of Article 401 and by relying on the validity of digital events, unnecessary nullities in the context of the modern economy can be prevented.