Thinking about the ratio of Innominate Contracts and Compromise Contract

Due to the wide scope of compromise contract, in addition to most nominate contracts, innominate contracts can be concluded with title of compromise contract. But is any agreement outside the nominate contracts necessarily considered to be compromise contract and does it not need to be intended as a compromise contract or its content and its nature to conclude it? Does compromise have its own particular content that must be intended like the other nominate contract, or is it characterized by not having a framework? Some jurists believe that the compromise contract has a concept equivalent to article 10 of civil law and notwithstanding the compromise contract which covers all innominate contracts, article 10 is not required. In addition to opposing the viewpoint of synonymy of compromise contract and innominate contracts with religious jurisprudence and civil law who regard compromise as having a specific content. For the following reasons this view cannot be accepted and compromise contract and innominate contracts must be considered two different concepts. Firstly: A type of agreement can be considered as compromise contract in which outcome of contract includes agreement, not every agreement out of nominate contract. Secondly: Compromise contract can be substitute of the nominate contracts, while innominate contracts cannot. Thirdly: Compromise contract is necessarily irrevocable contract and innominate contracts may be revocable contract. Fourthly: In compromise based on negligence, detailed knowledge is not required, but in innominate contracts, essential conditions, including detailed knowledge, are required. The only instance in which an innominate contract can be considered as compromise is one that denotes resolving or preventing conflict