Abstract: According to the clear wording of Article 191 BC requirement of legal acts (contracts and Coercives), There will (volitional and qualification) and through offer and acceptance and if the distortion of the will to reluctantly or under compulsion, Coercives the contract or due to the lack of Reza blunt or due to lack of intention is void. The composition will need to declare unilateral obligations of issues that can be seen between lawyers disagree. Some of them will declare the unilateral obligation, except as necessary in law, lack of necessity that is not considered unilateral obligations of the notification requirement. Their major argument, one way of unilateral contractsand thus does not need to agree on them and this rule is the lack of foresight by the legislature. Their major argument, one way of unilateral obligations and As a result of the lack of agreement on them this rule is the lack of foresight by the legislature. The other group did not make any difference in this respect between contracts and unilateral obligations and sentence of Article 191 BC Both in unilateral contracts have expanded. It seems that according to recent arguments and how to approach the issue of Jurisprudence (Article 167 of the constitution) as well as the principles of Article 191 BC recent argument is untenable and the announcement will happen in unilateral obligations as a condition, it is necessary coercives caused is because if reluctantly after removal of the butter, the reins of ratification or rejection of unilateral obligations is obtained.