A Comparative Study of the Obligation Arising from Unilateral Will in Iranian and French Law

The role of will in the creation of obligations and the determination of their boundaries and effects is evident for all. Traditionally, it has been debated whether the concordance of wills does lead to the creation of obligations? In other words, are two persons need primarily to create an obligation or a single will can create an obligation against him/herself? This question arises for this fact that obligation was understood as the legal relationship between two persons. The advocates of the classical theory have always criticized the theory of unilateral will as the source of obligation; the criticisms which are often answered by the advocates of the mentioned view. In its recent amendments and in particular Article 1-1100 of the French Civil Code, the French Legislature has recognized legal acts arising from unilateral will. There are disagreements in the Law of Iran; some have completely rejected this view and others have accepted it. As regards the nature of this obligation, some consider it as a directive unilateral act and others, invoking the theory of exhaustivity of contracts and unilateral acts, maintain that this view can be accepted as a general theory. This study is conducted through a descriptive-analytic method and aims at examining the creative power of unilateral act as the source of obligation in law of Iran and the French law.