Time sharing” or “periodical ownership” related contracts are new types of immobile contracts of temporal sale which are created in response to modern life necessities. The main feature of this type of contract is that the ownership of property is transferred to the buyer for a limited period of the year. Therefore, unlike traditional sale contracts in which the buyer acquires the complete and continuous ownership of the property purchased, in time sharing contracts the buyer owns the property only for a limited period of each year, in January for example. Thus, the property in question may be owned for a limited period during a year by a number of owners. As a result, the whole property price is divided between the owners according to different times in a year. This article discusses the status and content of time sharing contracts from Imamiye and Iran laws’ perspectives. The study consists of 5 chapters. It begins with a section entitled as Introduction that includes definition of topic, significance of topic, aims and objectives, literature review, main and secondary questions, methodology, structure of the study and the key words (Temporal Sale, Jurisprudence, Law, Imamiyeh). According to some of jurists, the term sale (baiy’) traditionally refers only to absolute (permanent) sale. On the other hand temporary sale primarily is not typical of common sale and it is out of customary or traditional sale. In this regard, the late Sayyed Muhammad Kazim Yazdi pointed out, “The reason for invalidity of time sharing is that traditionally the term sale (baiy’) does not refer to time sharing and if we are doubtful about the validity of such a reference it is not typical of sale. Hence, despite of having doubt in salability of such a contract, one cannot resort to the common in order to prove its validity”. However, it seems that the traditional definition on the concept of sale (baiy’) is that the seller sells the ownership of the property to the buyer unlimited and without the restriction of time and as a result the time sharing is opposed to traditional meaning of sale. Whereas the traditional authentication of sale is the primary requirement for the validity of sale, temporal sale cannot be regarded as sale or valid. Thus even if there is doubt, temporal sale is not typical of sale. Therefore, the analysis of Time Share which is entitled as contract of sale is false and inacceptable. Accordingly time share contract is not mainly a kind of common sale but a specific contract or agreement which of its tenor is scheduled ownership transfer and accordingly most of the jurists and researchers who have been asked about time share, have not regarded it as common sale.