nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | Supplement | Buchkapitel

3. Form of the Contract

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

The freedom of form is one of the main principles of the Turkish Code of Obligations. This principle has its basis in TCO art. 12 par. 1, according to which the validity of a contract does not require any specific form unless it is provided for by law. Consequently, the parties may enter into contracts that do not require a specific form depending on their own preferences as to form. In this context, subject to certain exceptions, a contract for the sale of movable property may be concluded in any form. A lease contract for movable or immovable property may also be made orally or in writing.

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 Public Promise

Nächstes Kapitel Standard Terms

Antalya (2012), pp. 324–353; Aybay (2011), pp. 32–36, 61–62; Becker (1941), Vorbemerkungen zu art. 11–16 (Formen der Verträge), art. 11–16; Berger (2012), pp. 245–258; Engel (1997), pp. 246–266; Eren (2015), pp. 264–296; Feyzioğlu (1976), pp. 303–349; Gauch et al. (2008), pp. 91–119; Honsell et al. (2003), art. 11–16; Kılıçoğlu (2013), pp. 104–112, 122–171; Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014) pp. 270–330, 609–619; Nomer (2015), pp. 61, 99–120; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 11–16; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 138–160, 176–177; Özsunay (1983), pp. 71–77; Reisoğlu (2014), pp. 80–97, 147; Schwenzer (2009), pp. 228–245, 18; Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 99–136; Tercier (2004), pp. 130–136; Tercier et al. (2016), pp. 206–220; Thévenoz and Werro (2012) art. 11–16, and von Tuhr and Peter (1979), pp. 228–229, 233–247.

Eren (2015), p. 271; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 138.

For further explanations see Tuğ (1994), Kavak (2015).

Tercier (2004), p. 131; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 11; N. 4; Eren (2015), p. 265; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 139–140.

Tercier (2004), p. 132; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 139; Eren (2015), p. 269.

Although “donation” is widely used in European texts, the author has preferred the use of “gift” throughout this book as “donation” has a narrower and more specific meaning in English.

However, even if the parties breach this rule, the promisor can deliver the goods stated in the contract to the donee. In this case, the contractual relationship between the parties will be treated as a gift “from hand to hand” as the delivery of the movable property by the donor to the donee constitutes a gift “from hand to hand” (TCO art. 289).

Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 11, N. 19; Eren (2015), p. 283.

Land Registry Act, No 2644 of 22 December 1934 (Official Gazette 29.12. 1934; No: 2892).

For further explanations see Keser Berber (2002).

Digital Signature Act, No 5070 of 15.1.2004 (Official Gazette 23.01.2004; No: 25355).

Performance bonds issued by banks can be signed by an electronic signature.

The art. 4 par. 3 of the Act on Movable Pledge on Commercial Transactions, No 6750 of 20.10.2016 (Official Gazette 28.10.2016; No: 29871) in relation to digital signature is reserved.

Notary Public Act, No 1512 of 18.1.1972 (Official Gazette 5.02.1972; No: 14090).

For further explanations see Ansay and Schneider (2002), p. 66 ff.

For further explanations see Ansay and Schneider (2002), pp. 57–58, 73.

For further explanations see Ansay and Schneider (2002), pp. 72–73.

For further explanations see Helvacı (2007), pp. 1865–1876; Helvacı (2016), pp. 419–428, cf. SCO.art.14/par. 3, see Engel (1997), pp. 253–254; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 14, N. 25–29.

See Sect. 1.7.

For further explanations see Öz (2016).

Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 152–153, compare to von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 30, VI, pp. 242–243.

Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 12, N. 3; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 153; Eren (2015), pp. 287–288.

See Sect. 25.2.2.

Becker (1941), art. 11, N. 8.

von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 30, III, p. 237 ff.; Eren (2015), p. 291; Tandoğan (1989), p. 242.

According to the TCPC art 106 in the case of a declaratory action, the claimant seeks a court declaration that a right or a legal relationship exists or does not exist. For further explanations see Kuru and Budak (2010).

Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 11, N. 33; Engel (1997), p. 262.

Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 175.

For further explanations see Altaş (1998).

See Sect. 3.2.3.

See and compare BGB §311 b subs. 1.

Tercier (2004), pp. 135–136; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 11, N. 37; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 155–158; Eren (2015), p. 290.

Tandoğan (1989), p. 242, See Decision to Unify the Jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, 30.09.1988, File No: 1987/2, Decision No: 1988/2 (Official Gazette 21.12.1988; No: 20026).

In Turkish law, the decisions of the Court of Cassation are not binding with one exception; namely, decisions to unify the jurisprudence, resolving inconsistencies between its divisions.

Thévenoz and Werro (2012) art. 11, N. 44–46; Engel (1997), p. 265.

Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 155; Eren (2015), pp. 295–296.

For further explanations see Kaneti (1972).

13th Civil Division of Court of Cassation, 08.05.1985, File No: 1985/2723, Decision No: 1985/3153; 15th Civil Division of Court of Cassation, 13.05.1976, File No: 1976/811, Decision No: 1976/2152; General Assembly of Civil Division of Court of Cassation, 13.10.1976, File No: 1975/13-108, Decision No: 1976/2617 (Kazancı İçtihat Bilgi Bankası).

Altaş H (1998) Şekle aykırılığın olumsuz sonuçlarının düzeltilmesi. Yetkin, Ankara

Ansay T, Schneider EC (eds) (2002) Introduction to Turkish business law. Turan, Ankara

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

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

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

Gauch P, Schluep WR, Schmid J (2008) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, vol 1. Schulthess, Zürich

Helvacı İ (2007) “Özürlüler hakkında kanun”un borçlar kanunu, ticaret kanunu ve medeni kanun ve noterlik kanunu bakımından getirdiği değişiklikler üzerine (Türk borçlar kanunu ve Türk ticaret kanunu tasarıları hakkında bazı saptamalar). Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Ülgen’e Armağan, vol II. İstanbul, pp. 1865–1876

Helvacı İ (2016) Görme engelli kişilerin imzaları ve ispat yükü üzerine bazı düşünceler. İstanbul kültür üniversitesi hukuk fakültesi dergisi 15(2):419–428

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

Kaneti S (1972) Hukuki işlemlerin çevrilmesi (tahvili). İstanbul üniversitesi, İstanbul

Kavak Y (2015) Borçlar hukukunda yazılı şekil. Kayhan, İstanbul

Keser Berber L (2002) İnternet üzerinde yapılan işlemlerde elektronik para ve dijital imza. Yetkin, 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.

Kuru B, Budak AC (2010) Tespit davaları. On iki levha, İstanbul

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

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

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

Öz K (2016) Tadil sözleşmesi. Filiz, İstanbul

Özsunay E (1983) Borçlar hukuku, vol I. Filiz, İstanbul

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

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

Tandoğan H (1989) Borçlar hukuku, özel borç ilişkileri, vol I/1. Vedat, İstanbul

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, Art. 8. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Bâle

Tuğ A (1994) Türk özel hukukunda şekil. Mimoza, Konya

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

Titel: Form of the Contract
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_3

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