A comparative study on the Sanctions of unfair terms in Iran, United States of America and European Union

Prevalence of some contractual terms, in spite of their unfairness, changing the issue to an undeniable fact, confronting free will with difficulty in contractual relationships, have caused theory of unfair terms to be common in all law systems in recent centuries, in a way that now a days, few countries can be found which have no trace of development of the theory. Recognition of concept of unfairness and determining a criterion to identify it, are not necessarily enough to achieve final goal of confronting unfairness. Another aspect of supporting victims of such contractual terms is intention to establish enforcement which can give maximum protection to losers of such unfairness.
Studies have shown that preventing a further split between the dominant supporter and the poorly-constrained side lead to the adoption of the EU directive of 13/93 that member states have recognized absolute invalidity, relative invalidity, right of terminate .Accepting the theory of unconscionability in the United States is to reciprocate this principle in the UCC in the mid-20th century and if the court as a matter of law finds the clause to have been unconscionable will choose the Sanction.
In Iran law, the existing capabilities in jurisprudence, as well as the judiciary's consideration of legal principles and interpretative techniques, can be applied in this regard. One of the most important of these is the censorship of public policy and the abuse of the state of emergency. However, the results of the investigation indicate the need for the legislator to act explicitly.