in first term is to be noted that in the general companies Act, the legislator is careful not qualify to society as a contract, does not thereby denying its contractual character (Oswaldo Hundskopf). So, is it would have then opted only not qualify it normatively. And it is that this topic is reason for deep and intense doctrinal debates. In effect in society, the contract is presented in two moments (Walter Gutierrez Camacho): the first, (where much of the legislation and comparative doctrine are in agreement), the Act of Constitution, i.e. Cancer Research Institute. understands that this is vital information. the social compact or partnership agreement, and second, as an organization (unilateral benefits autonomous). This work will be based on basically develop the first above mentioned moment. I. legal nature.-this agreement exists legally as an act of Constitution and as an organization. but not as a legal entity because it has not met the requirement that the Act requires that this arises. Therefore, the absence of legal personality, will be irregular (Arts. 144 cc and 423 LGS). II. elements-to) contributions from partners. (b) forming a common fund, with some autonomy. (c) make a cash profit. (d) Covenant support losses and gains. (e) Organization III. TYPICITY.-our corporate system is closed, therefore not them allowed partners create new organisational, choosing only among those proposed by the general law of (anonymous, collective, limited partnerships, commercial) civil and limited liability companies. IV. cases in which not is no contract of society.-occur in so-called legal society, i.e., when required by law to hire doctrine qualify to act as forced contract. Article 4 LGS plurality of partners when the only partner is the State, or in other cases expressly identified by law is not enforceable.