A Comparative Study of the Theoretical Foundations of the Unilateral Obligation, with Emphasis on Iranian and English Legal System

The legitimacy of creating a unilateral obligation is a disputed matter. According to the opponents, non-recognition of such institution in the law, violation of the dignity, guardianship over the obligee and violation of his independence prevent its acceptance. According to the proponents, such institution can be ruled as legitimate according to legal principles and social necessities, such as the rule of will, justice, social realities, donation of unilateral possession, presumption consent, and necessity of facilitating donations. This article, while preferring the views of the proponents, considers the matter as a case beyond law and jurisprudence and related to the philosophy of law. In England, there are various opinions in favor of the legitimacy of this institution. In Iran, most judges have judged it as legitimate. The basis of acceptance in the two countries is the sovereignty and freedom of will and the principle of irrevocable and correctness in the unilateral legal act.