‌Context & Objective: In Iranian legal practice, when a sale is invalidated due to the object of sale not belonging to the seller, the buyer is legally entitled to recover the paid price and receive compensation for the diminished value of the currency, based on item-specific inflation. This right has been affirmed by Uniform Judicial Decisions Nos. 733 and 811 of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Iran, which are binding across all courts. Nonetheless, a recurring legal issue arises when there is a significant delay between the issuance of a final judgment and the enforcement of the ruling. Such delays can result in further economic loss for the buyer, particularly in unauthorized transactions [fuḍūlī]. The legal principle of res judicata restricts revisiting judicial findings post-judgment, yet practical consequences of delayed enforcement remain unresolved. This study aims to address the research question: How can Iranian law ensure full compensation to the buyer when a final judgment is delayed in its enforcement?
 ‌Method & Approach: This research employs a doctrinal legal methodology, relying on comprehensive analysis of statutory law, authoritative judicial precedents, and scholarly interpretations within the Iranian legal system. The study particularly examines the interpretive function of item-specific versus general inflation indices in judicial remedies and investigates how these concepts can be applied in sequential stages—before and after judgment issuance—to close the compensation gap in delayed enforcement scenarios.
 ‌Findings: The study finds that while item-specific inflation is the appropriate measure for calculating loss in purchasing power up to the date of final judgment, it becomes inadequate once a ruling has been issued. For the period following the judgment until its enforcement, using the general inflation index released by the Central Bank of Iran emerges as a legally and practically viable method to ensure fair compensation. This adjustment not only upholds the economic interests of the buyer but also provides clarity and consistency for enforcement authorities, mitigating the ambiguity often associated with post-judgment compensation enforcement.
 ‌Conclusion: To maintain the effectiveness and finality of judicial rulings while safeguarding the buyer’s financial interests, Iranian courts should adopt a dual-inflation approach: apply item-specific inflation for pre-judgment losses and general inflation for the post-judgment enforcement delay. This model balances doctrinal consistency with practical fairness, enhancing both the legitimacy and enforceability of court decisions in cases involving unauthorized sales.