Background and Aims: The principle of relativity of contracts is one of the important issues affecting contract law. Exceptions to this principle are important issues that have always been the subject of debate and opinion. The purpose of this article is to examine exceptions to the principle of relativity of contracts in Iranian jurisprudence and law and Canadian law. Materials and Methods: The method of this article is descriptive and analytical. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the text, honesty and trustworthiness are observed.
Findings: In both Iranian jurisprudence and Canadian law, exceptions to the principle of relativity of contracts are accepted.In Canadian law as customary law in some lawsuits, the court has ruled on the validity of the obligation in favor of the third party as an exception to the principle of relativity of contracts,and it seems that it can be extended and generalized to other issues with a similar situation. In Iranian law, however, legal provisions have been developed based on which, the obligation for the benefit of a third party, the benevolent intervention, and collective agreements on labor rights are among the exceptions to the principle of relativity of contracts.
Conclusion: The reason that in some cases others are not immune from the effects of contracts is because exceptions to the principle of relativity of contracts have been accepted in Iranian jurisprudence and law and Canadian law.