Construction contracts in return for land share are very common. Contractors do not have sufficient financial resources during the performance of such contracts. They prefer various methods both in order to maintain the contractual relationship and to find financial resources. In order to qualify the relationship between the land owner and the contractor as an ordinary partnership, the conditions sought in the law must be fulfilled. Today, when the contractor does not fulfill the promise-to-sale contract, the creditor, who has made a promise-to-sale contract on the basis of the promise-to-sale contract from the contractor, in case of breach of this contract, even if the compensation for the positive damage is sought, after the execution of this decision, the contractor submits a letter of guarantee to the file in line with the appeal request. If we leave the provisions aside, we see that we are left helpless in the legal sense. The reason for this is that the price of durable consumer goods is increasing a lot today. When the consumer waits for two to two and a half years before the contractor for the compensation of the positive damage, he cannot obtain the amount to receive the price of the real estate subject to the sale. If we can describe the relationship between the land owner and the contractor as an ordinary partnership here, the land owner and the third party dealing with the contractor will be able to directly demand the fulfillment of the obligation subject to this contract from the land owner. It is stated that all partners have the right to manage the partnership, unless the 625/1 provision of the TCO on ordinary partnership is left to only one or more partners or a third party by contract or decision. In order for us to claim that a partner does not have a management right in an ordinary partnership, that management authority must be abolished. According to the TCO 637, the partner who is given the management authority is deemed to have the authority to represent the partnership or all partners against third parties. However, the managing partner with the authority to represent is deemed to have the authority to represent the partnership or all partners against third parties. However, it is conditional that all partners have been unanimously authorized to make important dispositions to be made by the managing partner with the authority to represent, and this matter has been clearly stated in the authorization document. Here, the authority of representation is presumption only in terms of debiting transactions. When we say that there is an ordinary partnership relationship between the land owner and the contractor, we see the existence of the presumption of representation in terms of the contractor’s ability to make debtor transactions on the part of third parties, unless the management authority is limited. When we evaluate the presumption of representation in terms of contract law, the promise of sale contract is a debiting transaction, and when the contractor does this, the whole partnership becomes a party to the debts of this contract. When we describe it as an ordinary partnership, such a result will arise in terms of third parties. We should emphasize that there are conditions sought by the legislator in ordinary partnership. Unless these conditions are met, we cannot characterize the relationship between the contractor and the land owner as an ordinary partnership. For these conditions, we will have to refer to Article 620 of the TCO. Ordinary partnership agreement is defined as an agreement in which two or more persons undertake to combine their labor and property to achieve a common purpose. He further stated that if a partnership does not have the distinguishing characteristics of partnerships regulated by law, it will be considered an ordinary partnership subject to the provisions of this section. When we look at the definition, two elements come to the fore; It is an element of common purpose and an element of effort. The common purpose element is the basic element of the contract. The parties must have a common purpose to be involved in the partnership relationship. In another element, it is shown that they make an effort to merge, benefit and participate in the activity. The purpose of the partnership is to generate income, but the partners who come together to generate income must have provided this element of effort in order for us to qualify their relationship as an ordinary partnership. Ordinary partnership can be temporary or permanent. It is possible to form an ordinary partnership even for just one business. It is a legal relationship that can continue without losing the legal personality if the legal entities are partners, as well as the real or legal person without legal personality. Undoubtedly, since the purpose here is to generate income, the parties that set out to generate income, as a matter that they did not foresee; There is a possibility of loss as well as profit motive. The provision of TCO 623 states that an agreement that a partner will only participate in the profit without participating in the loss will be valid only for the partner who has contributed his/her labor as the participation share. In other words, it is not possible for the partner who puts any asset to the partnership as capital, other than labor, to make an agreement that he will not participate in the loss. The partnership relationship between the parties brings with it the unity of fate in the economic sense. It is possible that the contract between the land owner and the contractor can be made in many different types. Revenue-sharing construction promise
