A Comparative Study of the Illegitimate Condition in Iranian and British Law and its Comparison with the Unfair Condition in Other European Countries

The importance of the role that the contract plays in an economic system is undeniable. The importance of the matter is such that the law accepts, if it has not decided on it, that it must accept that the parties to the contract enjoy economic freedom of decision when concluding the contract, but that the contractual freedom is limited. Are those that limit unconditional actions? The laws of subject matter and public order and good morals are among the rules restricting the freedom of contractual will, which have a special and considerable place in all legal systems. These rules, which are mentioned in legal writings about contracts under the title of the "illegitimacy of the contract”, are studied, in the law of Iran and the United Kingdom in terms of effects and characteristics are not exactly the same. In both legal systems under study, the guarantee of the implementation of contracts contrary to public order and good morals is declared absolutely invalid. Moreover, the illegitimate condition is invalid in Iranian law, but it does not invalidate the contract. Another type of contractual conditions, the unfair condition, is against ethics and public interest. It has resulted in unignorable inequalities in contractual relations and issued rules and regulations by the European countries, though, these countries have problems in protecting its legal sanction. The current study investigates respective rules and regulations carefully and discusses about major reasons of differences in their interpretation and execution.