4. Standard Terms

Antalya (2012), pp. 285–323; Aybay (2011), pp. 44–46; Berger (2012), pp. 309–321; Engel (1997), pp. 165–175; Eren (2015), pp. 214–223; Gauch et al. (2008), pp. 244–258; Honsell et al. (2003), art. 1; Kılıçoğlu (2013), pp. 112–122; Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), pp. 225–257; Nomer (2015), pp. 72–76; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 160–169; Reisoğlu (2014), pp. 70–78; Schwenzer (2009), pp. 324–338; Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 154–166; Tercier (2004), pp. 160–164; Tercier et al. (2016), pp. 263–280; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), arts. 19–20, and von Tuhr and Peter (1979), pp. 11, 143–144. For further explanations see Yelmen (2014).

Conditions générale des affaires, Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen.

Gauch et al. (2008), p. 246; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 162; Eren (2015), p. 215.

Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 164.

Under the former Turkish Code of Obligations such a risk was quite possible. This is because the provisions relating to the surety have only required a simple written form for the contract to be valid. That is why it was possible for a third party mortgagor to sign a surety contract unknowingly. However, the TCO art. 583 par. 1 states that a contract of surety 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. If the surety contract is joint and several, this fact must also be included on the surety bond in the surety’s handwriting. Given this qualified written form requirement of the new Code, a third party mortgagor may not readily become a joint and several surety unknowingly.

Reisoğlu (2014), p. 75.

Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 166.

For further explanations, see Atamer (1999), Havutçu (2003), Aydoğdu (2014).