The principle of the relativity of contracts dictates that the legal effects of a contract are limited strictly to its parties; nevertheless, recent social and economic developments have necessitated that, in some circumstances, contracts also impact third parties. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, examines the jurisprudential and legal foundations of obligations in favor of third parties in the legal systems of Iran, Afghanistan, and Egypt. The findings indicate that, in Iranian law, the acceptance of stipulation in favor of third parties is based on the rule “the believers are bound by their conditions.” In Afghanistan, acceptance of this concept has been influenced by Egyptian law and established on principles such as juristic preference and custom. In Egyptian law, the adoption of the direct obligation theory considers the rights of third parties independent from the will of the stipulator. This comparative study shows that, despite fundamental jurisprudential differences, all three countries converge on the affirmative aspect of this institution but differ structurally in the negative aspect.