The non-liability clause is a contractual clause by which one or both parties exempt themselves from liability arising from the incomplete or damaging performance of the contract. This clause is accepted in various legal systems based on the principle of the sovereignty of will and freedom of contracts, but at the same time it faces serious limitations. In Iranian law, the acceptance of the legitimacy of this clause is subject to compliance with the general rules of contracts, moral principles, and the requirements of public order. By examining the jurisprudential and legal foundations, this article attempts to clarify the limits and pitfalls of the legitimacy of this clause in the light of domestic and comparative law. In the study conducted, it was found that the non-liability clause in some areas—such as damages resulting from intentional fault, bodily injuries, and additional contracts—is considered invalid or unenforceable due to its conflict with public order or the principles of contractual justice. Also, in the Iranian legal system, the lack of unity of judicial practice and ambiguity in the interpretation of the concepts of "contrary to the requirements of the contract" or "illegal condition" have caused the practical effectiveness of this condition to always be in doubt. The article seeks to identify the legitimate scope of this condition and separate it from its illegitimate limits by theoretical analysis and studying judicial examples.