Revolutionary Command Council (dissolved) Decision No. 1198 of 1977 regulated the contractual relationship for the sale and purchase of real estate outside the Real Estate Registration Directorate, with the aim of ensuring stability in real estate transactions. Paragraph (A) of the said decision addressed the difference between the two considerations (price difference) between the date of purchase and the date of the seller’s repudiation and the failure to register the sold property in the Real Estate Registration Directorate. Paragraph (B) of the same decision, on the other hand, provided for filing a lawsuit for ownership (titling) of the said property in cases where the buyer occupies the property, undertakes construction, performs burial works, etc., while the seller objects to completing the sale transaction at the Real Estate Registration Directorate. This is based on the fact that, under Iraqi law, formality constitutes an essential element of a sale contract. The Federal Karbala Court of Appeal, in its cassation capacity, in its decision No. (69/B/Civil/Price Difference/2023) dated 4/5/2023, affirmed the following principle: the filing by the seller of a lawsuit to restore the status quo prior to the buyer’s filing of a price-difference claim constitutes an explicit acknowledgment of the seller’s repudiation of contractual obligations. Accordingly, the date of filing such a lawsuit is considered a fixed date for the repudiation, unless another earlier criterion exists. There is no need to issue a formal notice if such repudiation is established by filing a lawsuit to restore the status quo. Upon examining the case file of the litigants (A and B) before the Karbala Court of First Instance, the plaintiff (A) claimed that he had concluded an external sale contract with the defendant (B), and that the latter repudiated his obligation to transfer ownership. Consequently, the plaintiff sought a judgment awarding him compensation for the difference between the two considerations for the damage incurred due to the repudiation. The Court of First Instance issued a judgment obligating the defendant to pay a monetary amount as compensation for the price difference, with the excess to be returned. The judgment was then overturned, followed by the issuance of a new judgment obligating the defendant to pay a higher amount as compensation for the price difference.