The validity of the obligation clause or compensation in the event of corruption and entitlement to non-revenue of the sold item has been a controversial issue in legal doctrine and subsequent judicial practice, with the issuance of unanimous decision No.811. The present study was written using a descriptive-analytical method to validate the obligation clause stipulated in the contract and the nature of this clause. It seeks to answer the question: if corruption is discovered after several years and the amount of damages determined by the parties is insignificant, is the buyer entitled to receive only this amount or is there a solution to demand compensation and the price on the day of sale (the subject of the unanimous decision No. 811) or the possibility of adjusting this amount. The findings of this study indicate that the condition of the recognizance in the contract is still valid despite the corruption of the original contract, and considering legal principles and foundations and in line with economic changes, the will of the parties to determine the amount of the recognizance should be considered for a reasonable period of time in proportion to the increase in the selling price and inflation; and not the discovery of corruption that becomes apparent several decades later. Accordingly, the will of the parties to determine a specific amount refers to the period of time during which, based on the specific or objective inflation index, this amount can compensate for the loss of the buyer's price decrease, and adjusting this amount based on the inflation index is not without merit.