Yanılanın Tazminat Sorumluluğu

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2021

Authors

İşçi, Meryem Feride
Kılıçoğlu, Ahmet Mithat

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Open Access Color

OpenAIRE Downloads

OpenAIRE Views

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Organizational Unit
Law
(2003)
Started in 2003 with 21 students, the Atılım University School of Law has so far graduated over 1700 students, and currently offers education for more than 1300 students. With the aim stressed by our Founding Dean Prof. Dr. Nami Çağan, we grant students with the background that allows them to access and evaluate information, rather than overloading them with information dumps during our education and training in the field of law. With a curriculum prepared with this approach and our mission in mind, we aim to graduate our students as actual legal experts who have internalized ethical rules, who are knowledgeable in terms of rules and institutions; and who are cultured, versatile, broad-visioned and inquisitive. In addition to basic courses in law conducted by our academic staff as pioneers of their field with respect to these principles, elective courses are available pursuant to current events such as those in mediation for legal disagreements, law and women, sports law, informatics law, media law and legal English; as well as law clinics to offer effective and interactive education. In addition, graduate and doctorate degree programs, alongside certificate programs such as those to train experts, peace-makers, mediators, and trustees in composition, are underway. A member of the European Law Faculties Association (ELFA), our School offers international relations and events, the Erasmus+ program, national and international fictional court contests, law and art days prepared by our student networks, or career forums in law to collaborate in the personal development of our students.

Journal Issue

Abstract

6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu'nun 35. maddesi yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğunu düzenlemektedir. Bu kapsamda yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğunun doğabilmesi için öncelikle yanılmanın esaslı olması gerekir. Zira yanılan Türk Borçlar Kanunu 30. maddesi gereğince esaslı yanılma nedeniyle sözleşmeyi iptal edebilir. Ancak yanılan sözleşmeyi iptal edebilme hakkını Türk Borçlar Kanunu'nun 34. maddesi gereğince dürüstlük kuralına aykırı bir şekilde kullanamamaktadır. Esaslı yanılma nedeniyle sözleşmenin iptal edilebilmesi kusur şartına bağlı değildir. Yanılan yanılmasında kusurlu olsa dahi sözleşmeyi iptal edebilir. Bu nedenle karşı tarafın sözleşmenin geçerli olarak kurulacağına olan haklı güveninin korunabilmesi için yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğu kanunda düzenlemiştir. Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğu bir culpa in contrahendo sorumluluğu olup bu sorumluluk güven sorumluluğunun sözleşme öncesindeki görünümünü oluşturmaktadır. Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğu bir kusur sorumluluğudur. Bu anlamda yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğunun doğabilmesi için yanılanın yanılmasında kusurlu olması ve Türk Borçlar Kanunu 35. maddesinde belirtilen diğer şartların bulunması gerekir. Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğunun kapsamında kural olarak menfi zarar bulunmakta olup istisnai olarak müspet zarar da tazmin edilebilmektedir. Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğu, Türk Borçlar Kanunun ilgili hükümleri doğrultusunda sorumsuzluk anlaşmasıyla sınırlandırılabilir veya kaldırılabilir. Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğuna ilişkin hükümlerin Türk Borçlar Kanunu'nda düzenlenen bazı kurumların hükümleriyle yarışması da mümkündür. Anahtar Sözcükler: Yanılma, İrade bozukluğu, Culpa in contrahendo, Tazminat Sorumluluğu, Borçlar Hukuku
Article 35 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TCO) regulates the liability for compensation of the mistaken party. In this context, in order for the compensation liability of the mistaken party to arise, the mistake is required to be fundamental. For, in accordance with Article 30 of the TCO, the mistaken party can rescind the contract retrospectively due to fundamental mistake. However, mistaken party cannot exercise the right to rescind the contract in violation of the principle of honesty in accordance with art. 34 of the TCO. The rescission of contract due to fundamental mistake does not depend on the condition of fault. The mistaken party can rescind the contract even if mistaken party is faulty in this mistake. For this reason, in order to protect the rightful trust of the non-mistaken party that the contract will be established validly, the compensation liability of the mistaken party is regulated by law. The liability for compensation of the mistaken party is a liability of culpa in contrahendo and this liability constitutes the pre-contractual aspect of the liability of confidence. Liability for compensation of the mistaken party is a fault-based liability. In this sense, in order for the mistaken party to be liable for compensation, mistaken party must be erroneous in this mistake and other conditions specified in Article 35 of the TCO must also be present. As a rule, negative damages are included within the scope of the compensation liability of the mistaken party, and exceptionally positive damages can also be compensated. Liability for compensation of the mistaken party may be limited or removed by an irresponsibility agreement in line with the relevant provisions of the TCO. It is also possible that the provisions regarding the compensation liability of the mistaken party compete with the provisions of some institutions regulated in the TCO. Keywords: Mistake, Defective intention, Culpa in contrahendo, Liability for compensation, Turkish Law of Obligations

Description

Keywords

Hukuk, Borçlar Kanunu, Borçlar hukuku, Hukuki sorumluluk, Law, Code of Obligations, Tazminat, Law of obligations, Legal responsibility, Türk Borçlar Kanunu, Compensation, Yanılma, Turkish Code of Obligations, Mistake, İrade sakatlıkları, Defective will

Turkish CoHE Thesis Center URL

Fields of Science

Citation

WoS Q

Scopus Q

Source

Volume

Issue

Start Page

0

End Page

141