No Paper Title Author Name Page No

MERICAN Journal of Public Diplomacy and International Studies
www.
 grnjournal.us 
 
opposite party are unsuccessful. The fact is that none of the participants can demand the 
fulfillment of obligations to him personally from the other participant or from all other 
participants, and this is very appropriate, because the parties are united for joint participation, 
and it is not aimed to satisfy their personal interests at the expense of a specific person (debtor). 
Therefore, in the first part, the corporate contract is considered to have the characteristics of a 
consolidated obligation. The fact that the corporate contract is not included in the scope of a 
contract that imposes unilateral or bilateral obligations does not mean that it is excluded from the 
list of civil legal contracts. This type of contract is also distinguished in civil law. Among them, 
the ordinary partnership agreement is particularly well known. 
It is also important to determine the place of the corporate contract in the system of contracts 
concluded for a fee or for free. In the scientific literature, the "reimbursement" of the contract is 
interpreted in different ways. This is the "mutual property benefit" [9] and the compensation that 
the parties want to receive by entering into contractual relations [10] and others. Article 355 of 
the CC contains the definition of remuneration. In accordance with this norm, an agreement in 
which the other party must pay a fee for an obligation performed by one party or make another 
opposite payment is considered a contract concluded for a fee. On the other hand, an agreement 
that does not imply the obligation of one party to give something to the other party without 
receiving a fee or other reciprocal provision is considered a gratuitous contract. Therefore, the 
basis of legal distinction between contracts concluded for a fee and for free is the existence or 
non-existence of a countervailing provision. 
Civilians who consider a corporate contract to be "made for a fee" show that the parties to it rely 
on the profits received by the economic entity to which they are parties. In addition, the law 
establishes a presumption of compensation for all civil contracts. The first thesis is somewhat 
controversial. In order for the contract to be considered concluded for consideration, the 
counterparty must receive a counter-payment from the counterparty (directly or indirectly). It is 
possible that the consolidated activities of the participants of the economic company may benefit 
them through dividends or an increase in the value of the shares, but this is not considered a 
payment provided by the counterparty. In general, the concept of economic benefit should be 
distinguished from the concept of "structure for payment" in civil law. 
According to H.R. Rahmonkulov, "when each party presents property of equal value, payment 
acquires the color of equivalence. Equivalence of property relations requires them to be 
economically equal in value, in which case these relations are paid relations even in cases where 
equal value is determined according to the current prices. [11, 245 p]
According to I.B. Zakirov, "contracts concluded for consideration, one party receives payment in 
money or property in exchange for the transferred property, services rendered." [12, 601 p]
In our opinion, the conclusion of a certain type of agreement for a fee is primarily determined by 
the existence of conflicting rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. If the obligation 
is directed to only one party or if the status of "partnership" has arisen due to the participation of 
many people in the contract, the element of conclusion for a fee does not arise in such contracts. 
Therefore, in cases where there is a factor of "reciprocity" and in cases where "opposite 
presentation" is provided, it can be said that the contract was concluded for a fee. These aspects 
are not clearly visible in the corporate contract.
As to the argument about the presumption of consideration, it is more reasonable, but it cannot, 
however, affect our final conclusion that the contract is gratuitous. The fact is that each 
presumption, including the presumption mentioned in the third part of Article 355 of the CC, 
only means that the point of determination has been established. The presumption is not 
axiomatic and can be overcome. The presumption of compensation within the meaning of the 
third part of Article 355 of the CC is eliminated by the law or the content of the contract. In our 
opinion, the nature of the corporate contract, as a general purpose, its gratuity is rejected. From 

---

203
A