Undoubtedly, whenever a contract or transaction is concluded between the parties correctly, the primary principle is its necessity. The principle of necessity is one of the most fundamental jurisprudential rules that proves the necessity and strength of contracts until there is no reason for termination; however, the legislator and legislator have allowed the termination of a necessary contract under certain conditions by rescission and options. One of the important and challenging issues in this field is the correlation between the interaction of rescission and options with the provisions of the principle of necessity; because at first glance, termination contradicts the nature and essence of a necessary contract. Therefore, the present study has explained this relationship in a descriptive-analytical manner. The results obtained from the present study indicate that in Imami jurisprudence, rescission and options are not only not in conflict with the provisions of the principle of necessity, but are also secondary rulings that are applied to contracts in emergency situations in order to achieve justice in contracts and with the aim of preventing harm from the rightful party. The relationship of rescission with the principle of necessity is that, with the consent of the parties, it eliminates the effect of the contract from the time of rescission with respect to the future, while religious options such as the option of the assembly, embezzlement, violation of the condition, and defect, govern the provisions of the principle of necessity from the point of view of government. Therefore, rescission and options, in interaction with the principle of necessity, guarantee balance in the relations of contracts and agreements.