Commutative partnership contract plays an effective role in contemporary economic relations, especially considering individuals’ capital limitations. Consequently, identifying the nature and attributes of this contract is not merely a theoretical exercise but a practical necessity. However, the Civil Code’s approach, marked by the absence of a clear definition of the civil partnership contract and the conceptual confusion between commutative partnership, joint ownership , and permissive partnership, has led to ambiguity in determining its precise nature. This research examines the nature of the commutative partnership contract and seeks to clarify the extent to which its legal instances(Article 18 of the Regulations on Facilitating Bank Credits, Article 2 of the Law on the Issuance of Participation Bonds, and Article 24 of the Law on Permanent Provisions of the Country’s Development Plans) align with the said attributes. The findings indicate that despite similarities with the permissive partnership of the Civil Code regarding its consensual nature and the lack of necessity for the commingling of assets, the commutative partnership contract differs significantly. Unlike permissive partnership, which presupposes prior joint ownership and is based on mere permission, the commutative partnership contract itself creates joint ownership. Moreover, as a binding, simple, and temporary contract, it produces several legal effects, including the mutual transfer of ownership shares, the obligation to participate in profits, and mutual agency and permission in managing the property. Since such permission is granted within a binding contract, it remains irrevocable until the end of the partnership period.