In Iranian Civil Procedural Law, Generally, stating at least one claim and one cause of action is sufficient for filing a lawsuit. For example, a plaintiff who alleges that the defendant has borrowed his vehicle but refuses to return it may bring an action with the claim of “restitution of the vehicle” and on the ground of “being deemed usurpation”. However, there are cases in which the plaintiff is unaware of certain factual circumstances, and this lack of knowledge leads him to formulate multiple claims in an alternative manner. For example, in the foregoing case, the plaintiff may have no information as to whether the vehicle still exists or has been destroyed. Consequently, in the remedy sought section, he may demand the return of the vehicle, and in the event of the destruction or loss of the vehicle, deliver its equivalent. This situation, which has given rise to the term “alternative statement of claim” in civil procedure law, is accompanied by the following questions: First, is the remedy sought the sole factor leading to the emergence of an alternative statement of claim, or can another element—such as the cause of action—also give rise to a different conception of an alternative statement of claim? Second, what relationship exists between the concept of an alternative statement of claim and related concepts, namely the “doubtful claim” and the “uncertain claim”. Third, what is the sanction of an alternative claim?