Administrative contracts are mainly concluded through a procedural franework defined by the law and if the compromise contract is an administrative contract the undergoing of this type of administrative contracts to a specific procedural framework has to be questioned when the exchange of consent between the administration and other parties happens which was denied by jurisprudence where Compromise administrative contracts is considered a type of administrative contracts that subject to the principle of procedural freedom when concluded in addition to that compromise administrative contracts are not subject to a specific formula when concluded especially the written formula. It is possible for the defects of consent to lead to the invalidity of the compromise administrative contracts however there’s privacy for the defects if consent in the context of compromise contracts and compromise administrative contracts especially where accordingly to the French civil law the defect of a mistake in the law or the defect of injustice are not considered to be obligations that would make the compromise invalid which is passed by the French council of state however the case is not the same in both Syria and Qatar as the Syrian civil law does not recognize the defect of the mistake in the law just like the French law meanwhile it recognizes the defect of deception as for the Qatari civil law it does not rule out any of the known defects of consent in the context of compromise contracts which is something applicable to compromise administrative contracts .