Iranian Journal of Trade Studies

Iranian Journal of Trade Studies

Legal Analysis of Call-Out Service Contracts in the Oiland Gas Drilling Industry

Document Type : Regular Papers

Author
Mostafa Asgharian
Ph.D. Researcher in International Trade and Investment Law, Tarbiat Modares University and MA in European Business Law, Radboud University (the Netherlands).
10.22034/ijts.2026.2092132.4284
Abstract
Call-Out Service Contracts are widely used in oil and gas drilling projects to provide rapid and flexible access to specialized services under technical, operational, and temporal uncertainty. Despite their widespread use, their legal nature and binding effects, particularly under Iranian law, have received limited systematic analysis. This study examines whether such contracts create binding obligations upon conclusion or whether obligations arise only upon issuance of a Call-Out Order. Using a descriptive-analytical methodology with a comparative approach, the study primarily examines Iranian law, with reference to English and U.S. law where appropriate. The findings indicate that where the parties have agreed on the essential elements of their relationship and established mechanisms for determining variable obligations, a Call-Out Service Contract should generally be regarded as a binding framework agreement. It may therefore create obligations of readiness, availability, responsiveness, and compliance with contractual requirements before a specific Call-Out Order is issued, while particular service and payment obligations may be activated by such an order. The uncertainty of the timing, quantity, or frequency of future services does not, by itself, invalidate the contract where adequate determination mechanisms exist. The study further considers the implications of this characterization for contractual chains, payment mechanisms, liability, delay, back-to-back arrangements.
Keywords
Legal Analysis
Risk Allocation
Oil Drilling
Call-Out Service Contracts
Contractual Liability
▪▪Al-Masry, M. F., & Zahari, W. M. Z. W. (2021). Contractual risk allocation in petroleum industry—“Knockfor-
knock” as a model. International Review of Law, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.29117/irl.2020.0113
▪▪Cabinet Office. (2023). Procurement Act 2023: Explanatory notes. The National Archives.
▪▪Circo, C. J. (2020). Contract law in the construction industry context. Routledge.
▪▪Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils. (2006). Concurrent delays: Extensions of time and
compensation. FIDIC.
▪▪Furmston, M. P., Tolhurst, G. J., & Peden, E. (2023). Furmston and Tolhurst on contract formation: Law and
practice (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
▪▪Gaille, S. S., & Harris, T. (2023). Control, fault, and knock-for-knock: A guide to selecting indemnities in
energy construction and services agreements. Energy Law Journal, 44(1), 101–117.
▪▪Gordon, G. (2023). An introduction to risk allocation in oil and gas contracts from an English law
perspective. In K. Svendsen, E. Stavang, & G. Gordon (Eds.), Knock for knock indemnities and the
law: Contractual limitation and delictual liability (pp. 20–64). Informa Law from Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781003206798
▪▪Kaasen, K. (2023). Limiting and channeling liability under offshore construction contracts in Norway. In K.
Svendsen, E. Stavang, & G. Gordon (Eds.), Knock for knock indemnities and the law: Contractual limitation
and delictual liability (pp. 118–152). Informa Law from Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003206798
▪▪Schepker, D. J., Oh, W.-Y., Martynov, A., & Poppo, L. (2014). The many futures of contracts: Moving
beyond structure and safeguarding to coordination and adaptation. Journal of Management, 40(1), 193–225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313491289
▪▪McKendrick, E. (2021). Contract law (14th ed.). Red Globe Press.
▪▪Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Central purchasing bodies (SIGMA
Public Procurement Brief No. 20). OECD Publishing.
▪▪Saraceni, P., & Summers, N. (2016). Reviewing knock for knock indemnities: Risk allocation in maritime
and offshore oil and gas contracts. Australian and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal, 30(1), 28–43.
▪▪Society of Construction Law. (2017). Delay and disruption protocol (2nd ed.). Society of Construction Law.
▪▪Tolhurst, G. J., & Peden, E. (2023). Furmston and Tolhurst on contract formation: Law and practice (3rd
ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780192868084.001.0001
▪▪Wan Zahari, W. M. Z. (2015). An empirical study on the contractual risk allocation and indemnity and
hold harmless clauses in the oilfield service contracts in Malaysia. Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Interdisciplinary Legal Studies.
▪▪Zahari, W. M. Z., & Abdul Rahman, N. (2020). Unfair risk allocation in oil and gas upstream service
contracts in Malaysia: The necessity for an oilfield anti-indemnity act. International Journal of Business and
Society, 21(Special Issue 1), 177–191.
سال سی ام / شماره صد و بیستم / پاییز 1405
168 اخوان خدمات )ر ی فا دها اردر تحلیل حقوقی قتحلیل حق قراردادهای فری تحلیل حقوق
منابع حقوقی و اسناد
▪▪International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. (2016). UNIDROIT principles of international
commercial contracts 2016. UNIDROIT.
▪▪Uniform Commercial Code. § 2-306. Output, requirements and exclusive dealings.
▪▪Procurement Act 2023, c. 54, §§ 45–49 (UK).
▪▪Government Commercial Agency. (2026). What is a “call-off” and how to get the process right. Government
Commercial Agency.
آرای قضایی
▪▪Cavendish Square Holding BV v. Makdessi, [2015] UKSC 67, paras. 31–35.
▪▪Caledonia North Sea Ltd v. British Telecommunications plc, [2002] UKHL 4.
▪▪Davis Contractors Ltd v. Fareham Urban District Council, [1956] AC 696, 721.
▪▪Hadley v. Baxendale, (1854) 9 Exch. 341, 354–355.
▪▪Hillas & Co Ltd v. Arcos Ltd, [1932] All ER Rep 494, 503.
▪▪Interstate Contracting Corp. v. City of Dallas, 407 F.3d 708 (5th Cir. 2005).
▪▪Interstate Contracting Corp. v. City of Dallas, 130 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App. 2004).
▪▪May & Butcher Ltd v. R, [1934] 2 KB 17, 21–22.
▪▪Pagnan SpA v. Feed Products Ltd, [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601, 615.
▪▪Triple Point Technology Inc v. PTT Public Company Ltd, [2021] UKSC 29, paras. 5–6, 51–52, 75–80,
87–95.
▪▪Walford v. Miles, [1992] 2 AC 128, 138–139.

  • Receive Date 20 June 2026
  • Revise Date 23 August 2026
  • Accept Date 29 August 2026