In the intricate realm of contractual law, the condition precluding action serves as a critical safeguard, ensuring that specific legitimate interests are protected within contracts and wills. This research examines this condition’s validity when based on a legitimate motive and for a reasonable duration. The study highlights a case involving an owner who violates this condition by engaging in acts such as sale or gift, raising important questions regarding the legal penalties associated with such violations. The primary objective of this research is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal consequences of breaching preventive clauses and to analyze how Egyptian, French, and Palestinian laws protect the interests of the stakeholders involved. The methodology adopted in this study is comparative in nature, involving a thorough analysis of the legal texts from Egyptian, French, and Palestinian laws. This involves a review of legal scholars’ opinions and relevant judicial rulings to highlight the differences in penalties and applications associated with preventive clauses. The findings reveal that both Egyptian and French laws advocate for the invalidity of actions carried out in violation of these preventive conditions. However, there is a divergence among scholars regarding the nature of this invalidity, with some arguing for absolute invalidity while others suggest relative invalidity. Conversely, the Palestinian legal framework prescribes specific penalties, indicating a variance in legislative approaches. The research concludes that the current legislative treatment of preventive conditions is insufficient and requires reform to ensure effective legal protection for affected parties. This leads to policy implications emphasizing the need to strengthen legal frameworks and enhance the clarity of legislative intentions in formulating laws related to preventive clauses. By doing so, the study aims to facilitate the achievement of legitimate interests for parties involved and ensure the enforcement of preventive conditions in a manner that upholds contractual integrity.

Abed, M. (2024). Damages for non-pecuniary losses derived from contractual breach. A comparative study of English & Palestinian civil law University of Zurich].

Al-Billeh, T. (2022). The Correction of the Invalidity of the Civil Trials Procedures in Jordanian and Egyptian Legislation: The Modern Judicial Trends. Kutafin Law Review, 9(3), 486-510.

Alchian, A. A. (1989). Property rights. In The Invisible Hand (pp. 232-238). Springer.

Alqodsi, E. M., & Gura, D. (2023). High tech and legal challenges: Artificial intelligence-caused damage regulation [Article]. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2), Article 2270751. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2270751

AlQodsi, E. M., Jadalhaq, I. M., & El Maknouzi, M. E. H. (2024). Comparative legal perspectives on voluntary restraints: Analyzing the adaptation of preventive conditions on property rights [Review]. Heliyon, 10(9), Article e30509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30509

AlQodsi, E. M., Jadalhaq, I. M., El Maknouzi, M. E. H., & Abdulhay, I. E. A. (2024). Suspension of the statute of limitations for civil claims: A comparative study of arab legislations. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101129.

Alqodsi, E. M., Serebrennikova, A., & Orsayeva, R. (2024). The Role of Judicial Discretion in Commercial Disputes: Penalty Clause Issues [Article]. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 16(2), Article 04523062. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-1081

Amayreh, O. I. M., Zakri, I. M. M., Tehrani, P. M., & Shandi, Y. M. (2021). The pre-contractual duty of disclosure in the Palestinian civil code draft and its role in maintaining economic contractual equilibrium. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 12(1), 119-156.

Attoh, K. A. (2011). What kind of right is the right to the city? Progress in human geography, 35(5), 669-685.

Awad, M. A. (2024). Publication of Collections of judgments of the Egyptian Cassation Court Case Study. International Journal of Library and Information Sciences, 11(1), 181-202.

Banaba, H., Susilowati, T., & Sejati, H. (2024). Legal gap in legal protection for aggrieved parties at the precontractual stage. Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, 4(2), 73-80.

Bechor, G. (2007). The Sanhuri Code, and the Emergence of Modern Arab Civil Law (1932 to 1949). Brill. https://books.google.ae/books?id=8v2vCQAAQBAJ

Clarke, A., & Kohler, P. (2005). Property law: commentary and materials. Cambridge University Press.

Crabb, J. H. (1977). The French Civil Code.

Dahiyat, E. A. R. (2007). Intelligent agents and contracts: Is a conceptual rethink imperative? [Article]. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15(4), 375-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9047-z

Dahiyat, E. A. R. (2011). Towards new recognition of liability in the digital world: Should we be more creative? [Article]. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 19(3), 224-242. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/ear006

Debs, R. A. (2010). Islamic law and civil code: the law of property in Egypt. Columbia University Press.

Hill, E. (1988). Al-Sanhuri and Islamic Law. Arab LQ, 3, 33.

Hodgson, G. M. (2015). Much of the ‘economics of property rights’ devalues property and legal rights. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(4), 683-709.

Islam, M. W. (1998). Dissolution of contract in Islamic law. Arab Law Quarterly, 336-368.

Jadalhaq, I. M., & El Maknouzi, M. E. H. (2019). Reading UAE Contract Law through the Lens of Islamic Jurisprudence: A Case Study on the ‘Extraneous Cause’Exception in the UAE Civil Code. Global Jurist, 19(2), 20180045.

Mallet, P., & Nassar, H. (2024). Consensual Terms Modifying Contractual Liability In The Light Of Uae Law: A Comparative Study With French Law. Denial Of Aggression Against Ukraine Or Occupation Of Its Territory: A New Case Among The Denial Crimes, 218.

Martin, R. (1993). A system of rights. Clarendon Press.

Merrill, T. W. (2009). Accession and original ownership. Journal of Legal Analysis, 1(2), 459-510.

Muhammad, A. H. R. (2024). Invalidation in Criminal Procedures (A Comparative Study). Contemp. Readings L. & Soc. Just., 16, 214.

Muris, T. J. (1980). Opportunistic behavior and the law of contracts. Minn. L. Rev., 65, 521.

Oudin, M. (2015). Evidence in Civil Law-France. Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement Maribor.

Sarhan, A. I. (2024). Options That Impair the Binding Effect of Contract and Their Role in Protecting Contractual Consent: An Analysis of How Arab Civil Laws are Influenced by the Islamic Jurisprudence. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law(1).

Savchenko, V., & Maydanyk, R. (2024). Contracts Implied-In-Fact Like A Form Of Will Expression. Truth Revelation Instruments In Post-Communist Albania: Transitional Justice Non-Feasance In Investigating Communist Crimes And The Fate Of Missing Persons, 283.

Scalise Jr, R. J. (2013). Rethinking the doctrine of nullity. La. L. Rev., 74, 663.

Terré, F., & Simler, P. (1992). Droit civil: les biens. (No Title).

Van der Merwe, S., & Van Huyssteen, L. F. (1995). The Force of Agreements: Valid, Void, Voidable, Unenforceable. Thrhr, 58, 549.

Veblen, T. (1898). The beginnings of ownership. American Journal of Sociology, 4(3), 352-365.

Waldron, J. (2004). Property and ownership.

Watts, G., & Wallman, M. (2024). 5 The UAE Legal and Regulatory Landscape. International Trade with the Middle East and North Africa: Legal, Commercial, and Investment Perspectives, 104.

Youngs, R. H. (2012). Compulsory and voluntary law: lessons in categorization for English law from continental models. Statute law review, 33(1), 84-92.

Ziadeh, F. J. (1977). Law of property in Egypt: Real rights. Am. J. Comp. L., 26, 239.