Analysis of the Rule of Exchange in Emamiah Jurisprudence and Iranian and English Law

According to the common view of Emaimah jurists, reciprocal contracts require consideration to transferred to the owner of the goods and vice versa; if not, then there would not be any exchange. On the other hand, some prominent jurists disagreed with the rule, and considered such action, a valid exchange. With regard to the latter view, the question arises whether the third party beneficent may demand performance of the contractual obligation? There are some mentions to this rule in Iranian Civil Code as well as some counterexample for it.
English lawyers have also presented the rule that consideration must move from the promisee, but it need not move to the promisor.
This article seeks to study the mentioned rule in Emamiah Jurisprudence and Iranian and English Law. It tries to prove that firstly, the exchange rule is not the essence of reciprocal contracts and the parties may disregard it and, secondly, the third party beneficent may independently demand performance of the contractual obligation.