The right of termination is one of the most important legal mechanisms for ending contracts when specific conditions arise. In the Iranian legal system, contracts are classified into private and administrative types, each based on distinct structures, and governing rules. The problem addressed in study is that, despite the formal and substantive differences between these two categories, the rules governing termination in administrative contracts are evaluated through private-law standards. The objective of the research is to clarify the key similarities and differences in the right of termination in private and administrative contracts and to assess the implications of these distinctions for administrative practice and judicial review. Using an analytical framework and a documentary method, the study examines relevant statutes, judicial decisions, and theoretical foundations. The findings show that although some superficial similarities exist, the right of termination in administrative contracts—due to the governmental character of the state and the need to protect the public interest—is governed by more specific and imperative rules. This divergence becomes evident in procedural arrangements and in the scope of authority granted to the parties. However, the predominance of private-law assumptions in the judicial system restricts the effective use of legal powers available to administrative bodies. A further manifestation of this tendency appears in the judicial treatment of competent authorities for termination-related disputes in both domains. The study concludes that a clear differentiation between private and administrative contracts is essential to maintaining the proper functioning of each legal system.