Adjustment in contract is one of the most important and controversial issues in general rules of Contracts in Administrative law of some countries like France. It is anticipated in Administrative Contracts, against private Contracts, to ensure the public interests due to the long duration and special conditions of these Contracts. But in legal system of Iran, it has been accepted just in rare and exceptional cases. One of these cases is clauses of contractual price adjustment in public construction Contracts. However, in Administrative law in Iran, anticipation of adjustment in this kind of Contracts is more controversial due to lack of a comprehensive system of Administrative Contracts and unknown factor of appearance of adjustment in Administrative Contracts i.e. “theory of unforeseeable affairs". Legal aspects of this issue will be studied in this article.

However, in the Iranian legal system, a legal entity called "Administrative contract" has not been identified and despite the efforts of public law jurists, such a path has not gone well. But it seems that in Iran, in the shadow of the requirements of the modern state, some of the Administrative Contracts here, specifically the mandatory ones, have been in place for decades, and promise to establish a law known in the Roman-German tradition as an "Administrative contract. " The present article answers this question by understanding such importance: What are the grounds and problems of the birth of Administrative Contracts through compulsory Contracts in the Iranian system? In response to this question, using the research method descriptive-analytical, these results have been obtained. First,Compulsory Contracts in Iran are, in many cases, functionally the same as Administrative Contracts. Second,Due to the occurrence of such a situation, one can hope for the legal recognition and establishment of Administrative Contracts in Iran and in this way it got rid of the confusion that prevails in the current atmosphere. Third,Despite the legislature's railing for the birth of Administrative Contracts in Iran, there are many obstacles in front of this legal institution in Iran. Fourth, The focus of these obstacles is in the view of the Guardian Council on the issue of the contract.

In this paper I am going to discuss the characteristics of Administrative Contracts. These Contracts are very important for the public legal persons because they are used by these persons as an instrument in order to intervene in economy. This importance is examined by the numbers of Contracts that are entered into by Administrative organizations and by the system of the managing, which caused some authors called them as "the organization of contract" and also representing them as a new form of management of public' welfare that are on base of consenting instead of being authoritarian. The existence of public legal persons in a contract by taking advantages of public power is caused that some scholars consider these kinds of actions comparable to regulation instead of being a contract. Therefore it is required to distinguish the signs that make an Administrative action as a contract and also it is required to distinguish the elements of Administrative contract from other general Contracts that an organization enters into with private parties. The Administrative organizations employ not only the Administrative Contracts that are under special rules of public law but also they can use general Contracts which are under the private law rules. The second group of Contracts is not considered in this paper. The consideration of the characteristics of Administrative Contracts illustrates that they have comprised by two main elements of organization and purpose. According to organization element of an Administrative contract one of the parties should be a public legal person, which have own exceptions. The purpose' element of an Administrative contract should serve public services or have some exception clauses which are not principal in general contract law.

Today, governments bind Contracts with private legal persons in order to fulfill their obligations in various fields. Since the government’s goal of binding such Contracts is to provide public interest, so there are certain circumstances that are not common in usual agreements among ordinary people. Equality of parties in rights and privileges has been accepted as a pivotal principle in private law, but the exploitation of public power in Administrative Contracts makes these Contracts in favor of governments. Exceptional terms such as unilateral termination of contract or price changes based on Administrative exemptions, raises the question whether such agreements are approved by jurisprudence of Islamic denominations or not? Contrary to the common attitude that considers Administrative contract as the offspring of the modern world, jurists of Islamic schools of thought were not unfamiliar with the concept of Administrative Contracts and referred to this concept in their books. With the emergence of a welfare state and a highlight of the role of the state in people's lives, the importance of Administrative Contracts has been clear more than before, since without them, it is not possible for states to serve citizens. Islamic Government, from the beginning of its establishment in Medina, and later in the time of Khulafa’ Rashidin, needed a formal legal framework for conducting its affairs. The Prophet's tradition and his successors in dealing with the issues that the Islamic Government resolved through its cooperation with its citizens is a valuable resource in this regard. Evaluating each contract with the general rules of proper Contracts is something that should not be easily overlooked.

The theory of unpredictable affairs and its application in Administrative Contracts is done with the aim of adapting the contract to the wishes of the parties and social and economic necessities. In general, in legal writings, three executive methods for modifying and adapting the contract are introduced, which are: suspension and delay of contract execution (if the events are temporary and the fulfillment of the obligation and the time of its fulfillment have the two desireds), reducing the amount Excessive liability or increase in the amount of liability of the other party (as the dominant method in compliance with Administrative Contracts) and finally, the order to pay damages (based on non-contractual liability due to defects in this article, in this paper, the method of payment based on the obligation The cooperation of the parties resulting from the principle of good faith is suggested). However, the result of unpredictable events may not be merely "burdening and costing the performance of the contract, but, on the contrary, will lead to profit and benefit. In the latter case, too, the theory of the unpredictable has the potential to provide a solution and, as the Nancy Court of Appeal ruled (indirectly), in the distribution of profits. Incidental changes appear and are proposed as an emerging method of contract compliance.

The doctrine of public function has fundamentally changed the classic concept of public services. Because this doctrine has denied the monopoly of personal and organizational criteria in recognizing public service and by resorting to some other criteria, some private sector activities are also considered public services in addition to the services provided by the public sector. The public function doctrine, by presenting a new concept of public service, also changes the criteria for recognizing Administrative contract. Accordingly, any contract subject to public service, regardless of the personality of the contract parties, is considered an Administrative contract. Thus, in such Contracts, with legal supporting, it is possible to anticipate prerogative powers. In fact, a contract in which the parties are private, based on the existence of the subject of public services and the components of public interest, is considered an Administrative contract and the public service provider can have prerogative powers. By this conceptual and substantive change, the jurisdiction of the Administrative courts in judicial proceeding to claims arising from Administrative Contracts will also be expanded and these authorities can hear the contractual claims of both private parties, provided that there is a public service issue in that contract.

The entry of foreign private individuals into the contract with the Administration is always accompanied by this concern that the Administration by using its instruments of governance, violates the terms of equality of the parties at the time of concluding the contract and will do such acts like the unilateral change and termination of the contract. To overcome this concern, the types of stabilization clauses in foreign investment Contracts are inserted, which seek to preserve the terms of the contract in time of concluding and to prohibit the Administration from changing the terms after the conclusion of the contract. This article by using a descriptive and analytical method seeks to answer the correctness of the inclusion of stabilization clauses in foreign investment Contracts in light of Administrative rules and principles. Findings show that the inclusion of the conditions of stability in particular types of words, freezing, non-interference and non-compliance with the principle of rule of law, the principle of competence and the principle of equal alignment of public interest and public authority are in contrary with the Administrative Contracts and the principle of compatibility and non-violation of the stabilization clauses in terms of economic equilibrium with principles governing Administrative Contracts.

Handling lawsuits regarding Administrative Contracts is important, due to specialization and special Administrative requirements. Therefore, in many countries, judicial review of these Contracts has been entrusted to a special judicial authority. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Court of Administrative Justice is envisaged as the judicial authority in charge of Administrative matters, but the Court has deny itself jurisdiction over litigation concerning Administrative Contracts. In the present study, with a descriptive-analytical method, after criticizing the existing judicial procedure and showing the lack of a valid legal and legal basis for its arguments, by analyzing the arguments of the proponents and opponents of the jurisdiction of the court and analyzing the elements and types of Administrative, civil and criminal lawsuits, we concluded that not only is it legally possible for the Court of Administrative Justice to accept the general jurisdiction in handling lawsuits regarding Administrative Contracts, but it can be argued that the procedure is inconsistent with the relevant laws.

Administrative Contracts are one of the main sources of corruption in public affairs. Due to the financing of Administrative Contracts from the public budget and the high amount of these Contracts, Administrative authorities are influenced by personal interests in the relevant Administrative decision. Considering the increase of efficiency and productivity of Administrative organizations and the necessity of protecting and guaranteeing the rights of citizens against the abuse of public officials, supervision of Administrative Contracts is mandatory and unavoidable. In this regard, various supervisory authorities exercise supervision over Administrative Contracts. One of them is the Complaints Board (law on tenders). Now, what are the characteristics of Administrative Contracts that need to be monitored? To what extent can the Complaints Board, as a dedicated over sight body over see and ministrative Contracts? And where are the challenges facing her? These questions are discussed in this article. Findings in the article show that the monitoring of this Board, in addition to its strengths, also has disadvantages, which we will review and make a suggestion.

According to clause (3) of article (10) of Administrative Justice Court's code, public employees’ claims against Administrative bodies regarding violations of employment rights are under The Court's juridictions. Even though The Public Services Code states them as one of the main formats of public employment in governmental bodies, Contracts don't fall under the above-mentioned court's juridiction. As a result, an essential question emerges: what is the basis of Administrative Justice Court's jurisdiction in accepting claims based on contractual employment? To reach an answer, this essay intends to recognize a distinction between contractual employments and private Contracts that are not under The Court's juridiction in accordance to the decision of its general board. The argument is that the employment's contract has a law-based nature. All conditions, consequences and regulations of an Administrative contract are determined by the law. Any alterations to its content depend on enacting new provisions and finally, parties' consent is irrelevant to conclude an Administrative contract.