The article constitutes an approving commentary on a resolution adopted by a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court. It addresses an issue that has for years given rise to disputes in both legal doctrine and case law, namely whether a credit agreement constitutes a reciprocal contract. The commentary provides an overview of the positions expressed in the literature and judicial decisions. It then outlines the concept of a reciprocal contract and examines the legal nature of the performances owed by the parties to a credit agreement. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the lender’s performance – consisting in the disbursement or making available of the credit amount as well as in the deferral of its repayment – is rendered for the purpose of obtaining the borrower’s performance in the form of interest or commission. Conversely, the borrower undertakes to pay interest and commission in order to receive the credit amount and to be able to use it for a specified period without the obligation to repay it prior to the agreed date. Accordingly, the performance of each party is rendered for the purpose of obtaining the performance of the other party, which fully corresponds to the concept of a reciprocal contract.