nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | Supplement | Buchkapitel

24. Effects of the Obligation on Third Parties

verfasst von : İlhan Helvacı

Erschienen in: Turkish Contract Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

An obligational relationship is a legal bond (vinculum iuris) solely between a debtor and a creditor. Thus, as a general rule, an obligational relationship may not give rights to third parties. This principle is referred to as privity of the obligational relationship.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Default of the Debtor

Nächstes Kapitel Extinguishment of Obligations

Antalya (2012), p. 138; Aybay (2011), pp. 10–12, 149–151; Becker (1941), art. 110–113; Berger (2012), pp. 25, 802–811, 826–836; Engel (1997), pp. 10, 417–436, 613–615; Eren (2015), pp. 52–56, 1141–1160; Feyzioğlu (1976), pp. 22–23; Feyzioğlu (1977), pp. 267–291; Gauch et al. (2008), pp. 324–339; Honsell et al. (2003), art. 110–113; Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), pp. 15–26; Kılıçoğlu (2013), pp. 564–587; Nomer (2015), pp. 14–24, 411–417; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), Vorbemerkungen zum dritten Abschnitt (art. 110–113), art. 110–113; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 21–23, 27–29; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 411–458; Reisoğlu (2014), pp. 34–36, 394–402; Schwenzer (2009), pp. 22–25, 535–546; Serozan (2014), pp. 28–31; Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 60, 208–239; Tercier (2004), pp. 188–191, 245–246; Tercier et al. (2016), pp. 42–44, 328–332, 426–427; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 110–113, and von Tuhr and Escher (1974), pp. 28–32, 236–254.

von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 2, p. 9; Engel (1997), p. 10; Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), p. 18.

Tercier (2004), p. 38; Tercier et al. (2016), p. 43; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 21.

Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), p. 16; Feyzioğlu (1976), p. 23; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 21; Eren (2015), p. 54.

Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 41, N. 99; Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), p. 17; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 21; Nomer (2015), p. 15; Eren (2015), p. 55. For further explanations see Kapancı (2016).

Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 21–22.

For further explanations see Reisoğlu (1958).

Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 55, N. 17 ff; Engel (1997), pp. 537–538.

For further explanations see Sungurbey (1963), Gümüş (2003).

Steinauer (2007), p. 280; Oğuzman et al. (2016), pp. 249–251; Nomer and Ergüne (2016), pp. 131–137; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 27–29.

For further explanations see Oğuzman et al. (2016), pp. 213–216; Nomer and Ergüne (2016), pp. 129–130.

For further explanations see Karabağ Bulut (2009).

Eren (2015), p. 1152; Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), pp. 20–21.

Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 39; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 443–445. For further explanations Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), pp. 20–25.

Serozan (2014), pp. 246–247; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 443–445; Eren (2015), p. 1058.

See Sect. 24.4, Chaps. 32 and 33.

For further explanations see Kılıçoğlu (1979).

Becker (1941), art. 68, N. 4; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 251.

Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 110, N. 1; Engel (1997), p. 613.

Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 110, N. 14; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 262–263; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 209; Serozan (2014), p. 28.

Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 110, N. 23; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 263; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 210.

Engel (1997), p. 614; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 110, N. 31; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 263; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 211; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 297; Eren (2015), p. 932.

von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 59, III, p. 28; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 263; Serozan (2014), p. 28; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 214 ff.

See Sect. 27.5.2.

Porte-fort, Vertrag zu Lasten eines Dritten.

For further explanations see Tandoğan (1959), Reisoğlu (1963), Yüce (2007).

Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 286; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 419; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 230.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 418.

For further explanations see Reisoğlu (1977), Reisoğlu (1983), Barlas (1986), Kahyaoğlu (1996), Reisoğlu (1997), Doğan (2002).

Engel (1997), p. 430; Becker (1941), art. 111, N. 2; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 414; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 228; Eren (2015), p. 1153; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 395; Feyzioğlu (1977), pp. 286–287.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 415; Eren (2015), p. 1153.

Engel (1997), p. 435; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 111, N. 19–25; Feyzioğlu (1977), pp. 288–289; Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 233–238; Eren (2015), pp. 1155–1156; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 415–418.

For further explanations see Elçin Grassinger (1996), Özen (2016).

See Sect. 3.2.2.2.

Pouvoir de disposer, Verfügungsmacht.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 426.

Engel (1997), p. 430; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 429; Eren (2015), p. 1159; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 394.

It should be kept in mind that if the guarantor is a natural person, then the maximum amount of the guarantor’s liability must be indicated in the guarantor’s own handwriting. This is because the TCO art. 583 par. 1 states that a surety contract must be in writing and that the date and maximum amount of the surety’s liability must be indicated in the surety’s own handwriting. These rules are applied by analogy to guarantees provided by natural persons (TCO art. 603). Consequently, in such a case, if the maximum amount of the guarantor’s liability is not indicated in the guarantor’s own handwriting, then the guarantee contract is void.

Becker (1941), art. 111, N. 14; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 111, N. 10; Engel (1997), p. 435; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 429; Nomer (2015), p. 412; Eren (2015), p. 1159.

Cf. Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 431.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 431–432.

Engel (1997), p. 434; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 399; Eren (2015), p. 1160.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 433.

Eren (2015), p. 1160; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 433.

Eren (2015), p. 1160; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 434.

Engel (1997), p. 434.

Reisoğlu (2014), p. 400; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 435; Eren (2015), p. 1160.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 435–436; Eren (2015), p. 1160; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 399.

Stipulation pour autrui, Vertrag zugunsten eines Dritten.

For further explanations see Akyol (2008).

Promettant, Promittent.

Stipulant, Promissar, Versprechensempfänger.

Tiers, Dritte; Bénéficiaire, Begünstigte.

Engel (1997), p. 417; Tercier (2004), p. 190; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 438; Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 271; Becker (1941), art. 112, N. 1.

Engel (1997), p. 420; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 112, N. 7; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 219; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 449; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 401.

Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 112, N. 5; Eren (2015), p. 1142; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 438; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 227; Becker (1941), art. 112, N. 4.

Eren (2015), p. 1142; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 438.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 446–447.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 447.

Acte de disposition, Verfügungsgeschäft. See Chap. 14, fn. 5–6.

Engel (1997), p. 421; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 447–448.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 448–449.

Tercier (2004), p. 190; Engel (1997), p. 419; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 112, N. 10; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 220; Nomer (2015), p. 414.

Pouvoir de disposer, Verfügungsmacht.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 451.

von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 82, I, 1, p. 237; Engel (1997), p. 419–420; compare to Becker (1941), art. 112, N: 23, 24, cf. Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 451 fn. 123.

von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 82, I, 1, p. 237; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 226; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), pp. 451–452.

Tercier (2004), p. 190; Engel (1997), p. 420; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 112, N. 16.

von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 83, I, p. 246; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 452.

See Chap. 28.

Becker (1941), art. 112. N. 27; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 453.

Engel (1997), p. 422; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 441.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 442.

Pouvoir de disposer, Verfügungsmacht.

Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 455.

Akyol Ş (2008) Tam üçüncü şahıs yararına sözleşme. Vedat, İstanbul

Antalya OG (2012) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 1. Legal, İstanbul

Aybay A (2011) Borçlar hukuku dersleri genel bölüm. Filiz, İstanbul

Barlas N (1986) Türk hukuk sisteminde banka teminat mektupları. İstanbul

Becker H (1941) Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, vol VI, Obligationenrecht, 1. Abteilung: Allgemeine Bestimmungen, Art. 1-183. Stämpfli, Bern

Berger B (2012) Allgemeines Schuldrecht. Stämpfli, Bern

Doğan V (2002) Banka teminat mektupları. Savaş, Ankara

Elçin Grassinger G (1996) Borçlar kanununa göre kefilin alacaklıya karşı sahip olduğu savunma imkânları. Alfa, İstanbul

Engel P (1997) Traité des obligations en droit Suisse. Stämpfli, Bern

Eren F (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Yetkin, Ankara

Feyzioğlu FN (1976) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 1. Fakülteler, İstanbul

Feyzioğlu FN (1977) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 2. Fakülteler, İstanbul

Gauch P, Schluep W R, Emmenegger S (2008) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, vol 2. Schulthess, Zürich

Gümüş MA (2003) Türk medeni kanununun getirdiği yeni şerhler. Vedat, İstanbul

Honsell H, Vogt NP, Wiegand W (eds) (2003) Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Obligationenrecht 1: Art. 1-529 OR. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

Kahyaoğlu EC (1996) Banka garantileri. İstanbul

Kapancı KB (2016) Ahlaka aykırı bir fiille kasten verilen zararın tazmini. Vedat, İstanbul

Karabağ Bulut N (2009) Üçüncü kişiyi koruyucu etkili sözleşme. On iki levha, İstanbul

Kılıçoğlu A (1979) Türk borçlar hukukunda kanuni halefiyet. Ankara üniversitesi, Ankara

Kılıçoğlu AM (2013) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Turhan, İstanbul

Kocayusufpaşaoğlu N (2014) Borçlar hukuku genel bölüm, vol 1 (Kocayusufpaşaoğlu/Hatemi/Serozan/Arpacı). Filiz, İstanbul

Nomer HN (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

Nomer HN, Ergüne S (2016) Eşya hukuku. On iki levha, İstanbul

Oğuzman K, Öz T (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 1. Vedat, İstanbul

Oğuzman K, Öz T (2016) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 2. Vedat, İstanbul

Oğuzman K, Seliçi Ö, Oktay-Özdemir S (2016) Eşya hukuku. Filiz, İstanbul

Oser H, Schönenberger W (1929) Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Volume V: Das Obligationenrecht, Erster Halbband: Art. 1-183. Schulthess, Zürich

Özen B (2016) 6098 sayılı Türk borçlar kanunu çerçevesinde kefalet sözleşmesi. Vedat, İstanbul

Reisoğlu K (1958) İstihdam edenlerin mesuliyeti. Ankara

Reisoğlu S (1963) Garanti mukavelesi. Ajans-Türk, Ankara

Reisoğlu S (1977) Banka teminat mektupları ve uygulamada ortaya çıkan sorunlar. Ankara

Reisoğlu S (1983) Türk hukukunda ve bankacılık uygulamasında teminat mektupları - kontrgarantiler. Ankara

Reisoğlu S (1997) Banka teminat mektupları ve kontrgarantiler. Ankara

Reisoğlu S (2014) Türk borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

Schwenzer I (2009) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil. Schulthess, Bern

Serozan R (2014) Borçlar hukuku genel bölüm, Volume 3 (Kocayusufpaşaoğlu/Hatemi/Serozan/Arpacı). Filiz, İstanbul

Steinauer PH (2007) Les droits réels, vol 1. Stämpfli, Bern

Sungurbey İ (1963) Kişisel hakların tapu kütüğüne şerhi. İstanbul

Tandoğan H (1959) Garanti mukavelesi. Ankara

Tekinay SS, Akman S, Burcuoğlu H, Altop A (1993) Tekinay borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Filiz, İstanbul

Tercier P (2004) Le droit des obligations. Schulthess, Zurich

Tercier P, Pichonnaz P, Develioğlu HM (2016) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. On iki levha, İstanbul

Thévenoz L, Werro F (éd) (2012) Commentaire romand code des obligations 1: art. 1-529 CO. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Bâle

von Tuhr A, Peter H (1979) Allgemeiner Teil des Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht, vol 1. Schulthess, Zürich

von Tuhr A, Escher A (1974) Allgemeiner Teil des Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht, vol 2. Schulthess, Zürich

Yüce MB (2007) Garanti sözleşmesinin bir türü olarak üçüncü kişinin fiilini taahhüt sözleşmesi. Vedat, İstanbul

Titel: Effects of the Obligation on Third Parties
verfasst von: İlhan Helvacı
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Turkish Contract Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60060-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-60061-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_24

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner