What is the ruling if the contract specifies, 'Cultivate wheat upon it, and nothing else'?

Primary text

The ruling is that this condition is void because it contradicts the implication of the primary contract, which permits utilizing the usufruct as the lessee wishes. The contract itself remains valid, analogous to stipulating that the buyer must personally take possession of the purchased item. Since the stipulation concerns an activity with damage equivalent to what is otherwise permitted, it does not affect the validity of the contract.