As the rules are more dynamic and more accommodate with the social and economic requirement of the community, they would be more pleased by people , and leads to improve individual's class's standard of living. The way of encountering with a breach of the contract and the violation of contractual obligations are among these rules. It has certain different effect, whether the promisee enforce the promisor to perform its obligation and in case of failure revoke the contract or has the right to choose between referring to the court or revoke the contract in accordance with its own personal benefits. Most of the Imamiyyah jurist believe it has priority to enforce the promiser to perform its obligation than revoke that, Iranian lawyer mostly follow this opinion. But in contrast, some  Islamic jurists believe that promise have the right to choose between enforcing the promisor or revoke the contract on its will. But in British Law in accordance with the goals of capitalism, the principle is to terminate the contract and force the promisor to compensate all damages and in the other hand enforcing the promisor to fulfill its obligations is an exemption. In this research by comparing the Imamiyyah jurisprudence ,Iranian law and British law we prove that it is more logic and acceptable that promise have an option to choose between revoking the contract or enforcing the promisor, and this option is not against the Islamic mandatory rules , and this theory is the proper point of view in todays commercial transactions