Although the possibility of revocation of the right is considered as one of the inherent characteristics of the right. But for a long time, there have been doubts that the owner of the right can take action to revoke the right before it is created. And canceling a right that does not exist yet has been considered against rational requirements. So much so that the rule of " invalidity of waiver of non existent rights " has been cited as a "certain rule" in the words of jurists; But gradually, the tendency to correct the " invalidity of waiver of non existent rights " and limit its scope has found more believers among the jurists. Some jurists have considered the revocation of the right based on the assumption of the existence of a right to be out of the rules and correct, and others have considered the revocation in the sense of prohibiting the creation of the right and seizing the cause as reasonable. A number of other jurists have also considered the condition of fall of right and choice as a condition of the result as correct and outside the scope of " invalidity of waiver of non existent rights rule. In Iranian law, according to some legal articles related to revocation of options or forgiveness of the doctor, as well as the favorable opinion of contemporary jurists, revocation of the right before its origin can be considered justified and acceptable in many cases.