دانشگاه تهران مطالعات حقوق خصوصی 2588-5618 55 4 2026 01 18 The Legal Nature of Contract: Reflections on the Autonomy of Contract Law چیستی قرارداد از منظر حقوقی: تأملی در استقلال حقوق قراردادها 605 629 105545 10.22059/jlq.2025.399612.1008016 FA عبداله رجبی استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدة حقوق، دانشکدگان فارابی دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. Journal Article 2025 12 06 <strong>Introduction</strong>  A persistent challenge in the legal domain concerns the lack of consistency in resolving contractual disputes. This inconsistency arises from divergent interpretations of contractual relations, particularly regarding how the law conceptualizes disputed agreements. The debate therefore centers on the legal understanding of contracts, as the adoption of a coherent interpretative framework is essential for the consistent resolution of disputes across diverse contractual contexts. Clarifying this issue enables the identification of the factors underlying discrepancies in judicial and arbitral decision-making. In this regard, the fulfillment of legal and judicial functions presupposes a precise understanding of the essence of contract law and the delineation of the elements that properly fall within its scope. Accordingly, the principal research questions are as follows: What constitutes contract law? What content does it encompass, and what are its foundations? Should contract law be regarded as an autonomous field of law, or does it merely follow the principles and methodology of other legal branches? More specifically, what perspective does Iranian law adopt toward contracts, and how does it conceptualize them? What is the nature of the legal rules governing contracts, what classifications do they fall under, and in what respects do they differ from other types of legal rules?   <strong>Method</strong> Although both domestic and foreign scholarship has addressed these questions, existing studies have tended to provide fragmented responses and have not succeeded in offering a coherent justification of current Iranian legal practice in light of its doctrinal foundations. This study seeks to address the matter systematically, drawing on the philosophical underpinnings of contract law, Iran’s historical legal development, and achievements in international contract law, and judicial practice. The research approach combines doctrinal and theoretical analysis with comparative legal study. In addition to examining statutory provisions and judicial precedents, the study engages with scholarly theories and comparative perspectives, including English-language literature on contract law. By situating Iranian legal doctrine within a comparative framework, the study aims not only to describe but also, where necessary, to critically evaluate and analyze the subject. <strong>Conclusions</strong> Iranian contract law is deeply influenced by Islamic jurisprudence, yet it also reflects the imprint of Western legal traditions and historical transformations. The doctrinal foundation of Iranian civil law, shaped by jurisprudence, Roman law, and French positivism, emphasizes the notion of promise. Article 10 of the Civil Code, for instance, is premised on the theory of will, treating the contract as a product of mutual consent rather than an exchange of material interests. Nevertheless, contemporary legal practice also demonstrates the influence of utilitarian and realist approaches. Judicial reasoning often incorporates considerations of equitable exchange and economic expediency, which resonate with both modern legal thought and certain principles within Islamic law—such as rules addressing fraud (ghabn), defects, and similar doctrines. Thus, although the historical dominance of the promise theory persists, economic realities increasingly shape the practical application of contract law. This interaction produces a complex doctrinal landscape wherein neither a purely promissory nor a purely utilitarian conception suffices. A comprehensive understanding of contracts requires acknowledgment of all three dimensions: the autonomy of will, the normative structure of legal rules, and the economic balance of interests. From this perspective, judicial intervention is justified where the formation of will is defective, whereas in cases of valid and untainted consent, the contract retains its character as a binding promise. یکی از مشکلات عرصة حقوق، نحوة حل اختلافات قراردادی است که می‏تواند از تصور متفاوت حقوقدانان نسبت به قراردادها سرچشمه گیرد؛ اینکه حقوق، چه رویکردی به قرارداد موضوع اختلاف دارد. گاهی قرارداد وعده‌ای به‌شمار می‏آید که دو طرف عقد بدان رضایت می‌دهند و بایستی تا آخر، پایبند به محصول اراده خود باشند و گاهی سود و زیانی شمرده می‏شود که دادوستد شده و حقوق باید پاسدار این منافع طرفین قرارداد باشد. هریک از این ‌رویکردها، آثاری دارد؛ قرارداد اگر محصول اراده باشد، اعتباری است که جنبة هنجاری دارد و احکام آن در هنگام حل اختلاف، حاکم بر دعوا بوده و دخالت قاضی در آن، حداقلی است؛ اما اگر قرارداد را برخورد منافع طرفین بدانیم، همانند عرصه‌های دیگر حقوق خصوصی، واقعیتی است که موضوع احکام حقوق است و قاضی می‌تواند آن را اداره کند. از گذشته، کمابیش می‌توان هر دو عنصر بالا در حقوق قراردادهای ایران یافت؛ اما به طور کلی، عقد تابع قالب‌های پیش‌ساختة شریعت بوده که نقش ارادة طرفین، تنها آن است که محصول توافق خود را در آن قالب‏ها قرار دهند. سپس، با گذر از چیرگی تفکر آزادی اراده قراردادی، امروز به جایی رسیدیم که ناچار از رسمیت دادن بیشتر به عنصر منفعت و ضرر، در حقوق قراردادها هستیم. اکنون، با نظر به این سابقه و با کمک احکام موجود و نظریه‌های حقوقی جدید، اگر بخواهیم قاعده کلی به دست دهیم، باید بین انواع قراردادها، با نظر به طرف‌های آن، که اشخاص عادی باشند یا تاجر حرفه‌ای یا دولت، تفاوت نهاد و از این منظر، به مبانی حقوق قراردادها نگریست و اختلافات قراردادی را رفع کرد. https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_105545_767699fb175473ce684dea18f6855854.pdf