Imamiyah jurists and Iranian legal experts have divided CONTRACTs into valid and invalid in terms of their effect and often, classified the unauthorized CONTRACT under the valid CONTRACTs. Comparative studies in recent years have led to the emergence of a new circumstance as VOIDABLE CONTRACTs in Iranian law. These CONTRACTs are considered to be valid and operated by the parties but they are VOIDABLE due to reasons such as mistake, duress or operation. Referring to some articles of the Commercial Code and Sea Act, the legal experts though consider the relative refutation to be in contradiction with the general rules of CONTRACTs, have still accepted them as a necessary and new establishment in specific cases. The authors, studying the reasons of the relative nullity in common law and comparing it with similar cases in Iranian law through a descriptive-analytic method,  have concluded that there is no necessity for discussion of the VOIDABLE CONTRACTs in Iranian law, common law and Roman-German law and contrary to what is taken certain, the claimed extensions are in line with the general rules of the CONTRACTs related to the unauthorized CONTRACTs and are justified.

Legal status of a CONTRACT in Iranian law may be valid, void or non-operative. Some of these status may change into another one, for example a valid CONTRACT may change into the void one. Such CONTRACTs are called VOIDABLE. So a VOIDABLE CONTRACT is one which one of the parties or third person can put an end to at his option. VOIDABLE CONTRACTs are not Known in Iranian law, but some exceptions can be found which this article deals with.

One kind of CONTRACTs is VOIDABLE CONTRACT. This CONTRACT is generally divided into two groups. The first one which is the most important one is a CONTRACT that has been concluded validly but it can be invalidated and effectless by the court. In this case, avoidance is used in its precise meaning. The second one is a CONTRACT that can be avoided by one of the parties to the CONTRACT or a third party. VOIDABLE CONTRACTs have been generally accepted in English and French law but some have claimed that a VOIDABLE CONTRACT in its precise meaning does not exist in Iranian law. In addition, the concept, scope, bases and effects of VOIDABLE CONTRACTs have not been clarified in Iranian law. In judicial decisions the concept of voidability has a more ambiguous position because the term ibtal (avoidance) has not been employed in its proper place and this fact shows that this concept is still unclear in the judicial decisions. This article, through a descriptive-analytic method, examines the concept of voidability in English, French and Iranian law as well as Islamic law and concludes that, in addition to English and French law, different kinds of VOIDABLE CONTRACTs with different effects exist in Iranian and Islamic law and it is necessity to deal with the bases of VOIDABLE CONTRACTs in which avoidance has been used in its precise meaning and has been referred to in certain Iranian statutes and in Islamic law.

As it is clear from the title of this article, two kinds of CONTRACT should be concluded for the execution of Lend Mortgage, because the CONTRACT of mortgage that is an accessory CONTRACT and is binding for the mortgagor ad VOIDABLE for the mortgagee is concluded through making use of the result of a lending CONTRACT which is a VOIDABLE CONTRACT, such that the borrower submits the roperty that he has lent from the lender for profiting through a mortgage CONTRACT to the mortgagee (creditor) against his liability and the Lend Mortgage is hereby accomplished.The authenticity and title of the juridical relation between the burrower and lender through a lending CONTRACT in the capacity of mortgager in the CONTRACT of mortgage as well as the existence and non-existence of relation between the lender and mortgagee are of discuss points in this legal foundation that based upon the offered logic, the authenticity of the Lend Mortgage after the rejection of the opponent notions is confirmed and it is in compliance with the noticed principles.

One of the main obligations of the agents is to avoid being in a situation of conflict of interests; In the sense that the agent's actions must be in line with protection of principal's interests. On this basis, a general rule under as to the prohibition of conflict of interest in agency has been identified in comparative law, which will affect the validity of the legal acts of an agent. Violation of this rule can lead to the voidability of the CONTRACT (or institutions similar to it in national laws) and the civil liability of the agent or a third party lacking good faith. This research, inspired by comparative teachings, has sought to discuss the possibility of identifying the general such general rule, as well as the effects and guarantee of its implementation in Iranian law, and this result has been obtained that it is possible to establish a general rule prohibiting the situation of conflict of agent’s interest with the principal based on the traditional rules of agency in civil law and Islamic law, which will result in the voidability of the legal act concluded by the agent with a conflict of interest. However, the guarantee of the implementation of the conflict of interests of the agent with the principal in the field of civil liability in Iranian law is more limited in terms of predicting punitive damages for the agent or the responsibility of the third party compared to comparative law.

Merchants put the commercial documents to security in commercial relationship with each other and banks. That is called "mortgage of commercial documents" and this action is computed by endorsement method for security. Commercial law of Iran hasn' t foreseen such a institution to mortgage for commercial documents. So court judges and lawyers analyze the case of mortgage of commercial documents by civil law and mortgage CONTRACT; but they face with some problems to do such action. One of these problems is voidance of mortgage CONTRACT from mortgagee.This essay attempts to present a solution to this problem. in the name of god

One of the commonalities of all legal systems in the field of CONTRACT law is the requirement of legal capacity of the parties entering into a CONTRACT. One of the criteria of this competency is related to mental ability to exercise their financial rights and responsibilities. According to an ancient rule, CONTRACTs of a range of persons including minors who suffer from lack of CONTRACTual intention have no legal effect except in rare circumstances. But nowadays with the overall increase in human beings’ rate of knowledge and the spread of human rights ideas to protect the interests of persons, the law of CONTRACT in many countries recognizes the legal validity of minors’ beneficial CONTRACTs and the VOIDABLE character of certain beneficial but risky transactions of the minors and provides for the supervision of the guardians in order to reduce the number of their void CONTRACTs. The broad agreement of Iranian and English legal systems in adopting a common basis and approach, on one hand, and their difference on other aspects, on the other hand, provide a good reason for a comparative study of their legal institutions. Building on these common and differentiated points, one may expect the Iranian legislator to provide for measures intended to prepare minors for their legal life after maturity. These measures may include provisions such as those found in English CONTRACT law for the validity of minors’ beneficial CONTRACTs

The ongoing transactions in the society and the potential losses that may affect the parties involved in transactions has inspired jurisonsults to extract some criteria for regulating transactions to prevent financial loss. The absence of each of these criteria leads to the voidability and nullification of transaction. The criteria include: The power over surrender, value of the price and the priced item, rational benefits for both parties, ownership of transaction subject, clarity and specificity of the price and the priced item, and irrational prices, which are considered common phenomena in today’s market. The cryptocurrency market, which has emerged with relatively specific features, has characteristics that can reinforce the suspicion of voidability on their own. Therefore, aligning the mentioned criteria in juriconsulting books with the cryptocurrency market and analyzing their specific features revels that the criteria for the voidability of transactions in the cryptocurrency market is missing and the market’s specific features do not lead to their voidability. Rather, it’s entering the market without a scientific background that leads to the voidability of some transactions. Therefore, in order to eliminate the grounds for the voidability of transactions in the cryptocurrency market, we should acquire knowledge on the topic.

The civil law of Iran has voided the mortgage CONTRACT on behalf of mortgagee. The specification of mortgage CONTRACT permission on behalf of mortgagee causes that the acquisition of death, insanity, silliness, bankrupt and unconsciousness abrogates the mortgage CONTRACT for mortgagee, also the mortgagee can abrogate the mortgage CONTRACT whenever he, she wants. The civil law has detailed the orders of mortgage CONTRACT and has stated the abrogation of mortgagee in article 787 cause dissolution, and it has not considered the death of mortgagee in article 788 its abrogation factor and has remained silent about "insanity, silliness, bankrupt and unconsciousness of the mortgagee". This details and silence of civil law raises some problems and questions on these two articles which have not been discussed. This paper represents their solutions in concordance with Islamic law and civil regulations.

Although arbitration is a CONTRACTual method of dispute settlement but it has a judicial output. This output emerged from imposing the arbitrator's award on disputing parties. The entry of the arbitrator into the arbitration process requires the establishment of a CONTRACTual relationship between him and the parties to the dispute. The agreement which is concluded by the disputers to obligate the arbitrator to settle the dispute is called the "Arbitrator's CONTRACT". This CONTRACT, which is considered less, at least in Iran's law, is the source of the arbitrator entry into the process of arbitration and his intervention in resolving the dispute. According to this CONTRACTual relationship arbitrator obligate to settle the dispute between disputers. In contrast, disputing parties also obligate to pay remuneration. The main practice of this research is to analyze the unknown relationship from the CONTRACT law perspective. An implicit assumption of the issue is twofold, firstly, men of parties in this pattern must be specified and then to check whether the issue and entity or the nature of that correlation can be applicable to the preset CONTRACT forms of civil law or it is a new separate design. Results from the analysis of relationship between arbiter and disputing parties reveals that at least three involved agents must meet the same state of mind on the case, which discusses unraveling issues in return of specified wage and finally this CONTRACT has its own nature and aspect.