Jurisprudential and legal analysis of peace in the position of Abra

Considering the jurists' contradictory opinions about the possibility of compromise without actual or potential conflict and proving the right, authorizing the contract of compromise by the civil legislator in transactions with no definition of preliminary compromise and clear purpose of the transaction and determining the limits or examples of the transaction has resulted in doubts on a contract of compromise for discharge since discharge as a unilateral obligation requires extinction of debts.Regarding independence of compromise and the definition of transaction compromise and the previous use of "transactions" by the legislator as well as the jurisprudential sources, the result and composition of compromise for discharge, which is concluded through written requirement of the creditor's grantor and acceptance of the debtor's grantee, is nothing but the extinction of debt in the compromise, which is achieved without transferring to debtor's property, and con not be acquisition of debt. While, compromise for discharge is naturally different from discharge, despite similar result (extinction of debt), in the formation stage (concluding the compromise and nature of discharge as a unilateral obligation) and in ruling stage. It is possible in compromise, unlike the discharge, to conclude a compromise for discharge in an unauthorized way, or through option clause. Moreover, regarding the different result and application of compromise for discharge with debt donation (extinction of debt and acquisition of debt), despite of similar formation stage (being concluded), the difference is that in case of compromise, unlike debt donation, it is not possible to refer to other authorities.