Analysis of the Main Legal Approaches of Iran, the European Union, and the United States Towards Unfair Contract Terms

Abstract

This article presents a comparative analysis of the legal approaches of Iran, the European Union, and the United States toward unfair contract terms. Unfair contract terms refer to conditions imposed by one party, often the one with superior economic power or bargaining leverage, which disproportionately disadvantage the other party. The aim of this study is to examine the similarities and differences in the approaches of these three legal systems regarding unfair terms, as well as to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each system. The article reviews the legal frameworks of the European Union, the United States, and Iran, utilizing various legal perspectives, including legal principles, economic analysis, and rational choice theories to analyze the issue. The paper also explores the challenges and legal gaps in Iran's legal system in addressing unfair terms, providing suggestions for legal reforms and judicial approaches. Ultimately, the article evaluates the opportunities and challenges that each legal system faces in combating unfair contract terms and highlights the need for further research in this area. The findings show that while the European Union and the United States have well-developed legal systems to address unfair terms, Iran's legal framework still requires significant reforms in this area.