The Comparative Study of Concept of Unilateral Contracts in Law of England, France, Iran and Islamic Law

The term "unilateral contract" in appearance contains an explicit conflict; due to the fact that contracts have at least two parties and are bilateral. In general, unilateral legal actions are outside the scope of contracts and are the equivalent of unilateral juridical actions. Unilateral contract in English Law refers to a contract in which, upon acceptance, only the offeror has an obligation. The offeree in a unilateral contract has no obligations, and acceptance is done only by conduct. In French Law, the concept of a unilateral contract refers to a single-obligation contract that can be accepted in any of the available ways to express acceptance. In Iranian legal system, a unilateral contract is not recognized under such a title. However, there is a similar entity called single-obligation contracts compatible with its French meaning and comparable with a unilateral contract in English law if acceptance is by conduct. In English law, as a general rule, the contract's conclusion time is the same as the receipt time of acceptance. Due to the offeree's reliance on the offer, the offeror loses the opportunity to refer the offer in the unilateral contract. The contract is concluded from the beginning of the offeree's action. There are many ambiguities in Iran's law regarding the issues raised because the legal texts and the jurists' opinions are not explicit in these cases. While their Inclusion in civil law adds to the richness of legal literature but in practice, this division's effects can eliminate courts' ambiguities in this regard. This comparative study's results indicate that Iranian Law can accept the unilateral contract without any obstacles. This subject is discussed in this article through a descriptive, analytical and comparative method.