BOTH PARTIES ARE MERCHANTS AND ARE RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OF THE PARTIES

13 Nov BOTH PARTIES ARE MERCHANTS AND ARE RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OF THE PARTIES

T.C. SUPREME COURT DECISION

15.law office
Base: 2016/3094
Decision: 2016/3597
Date of Decision: 21.06.2016

CASE OF CANCELLATION OF THE APPEAL – WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE MERCHANTS AND RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OF THE PARTIES – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION

ABSTRACT: In a concrete dispute, the plaintiff is the subcontractor and the defendant is the contractor (provider). In this case, dec the dispute is caused by the work contract, the dispute between the parties does not remain within the scope of the consumer law. On the other hand, it should also be examined whether the commercial court of first instance is in charge. The deputy plaintiff is the defendant in the appeal petition .. According to the information that he is a registered merchant in the Commercial Registry Office, and the plaintiff’s client is a civil engineer and works in the field of interior architecture and decoration, it is understood that both parties are merchants and are related to the commercial business of the parties. In this case, the court should examine the merits of the work and collect the evidence of the parties and make a decision according to the result, but otherwise it was not correct to make a decision on dismissal, it was considered appropriate to overturn the decision.

(6502 Pp. K. m. 1, 73)

Case: The appellant’s examination of the above date and number was requested by the plaintiff’s attorney and it was understood that the appeal petition was filed within the period of time, but the papers in the file were spoken and considered as required to be read:

The dispute arises from the work contract, the plaintiff subcontractor asked the defendant contractor to cancel the appeal against the follow-up by requesting the collection of unpaid work, the court decided to dismiss the bet because the case remained within the scope of law No. 6502, and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

Article 1 of the Law on Consumer Protection No. 6502, which was in force at the time of the opening of the case, is entitled purpose. in the article, “the purpose of this law and the public interest in accordance with the economic interests of the health and safety of the consumer protective, they make you pay damages, and protection from environmental hazards provider to take measures enlightening and informative to the consumer, the consumers themselves in their volunteer initiatives in these areas and encourage the Ranger organization is to regulate the creation of policies to promote related issues. The definition is titled 3. (1) the provider of the item; public entities, including for commercial or professional purposes or provide services to consumers on behalf of the natural or legal persons who act on your behalf or service, (K) consumer, business -, or non-natural or legal persons who act for professional purposes, (L) consumer process; in markets for goods or services, including public entities, commercial or professional purposes, or acting for or on behalf established between natural or legal persons who act on her behalf and consumers, work, transportation, brokerage, insurance, attorneys, banking and similar contracts of all kinds, including contractual and legal process.” there are regulations. In order for a legal transaction to be considered a consumer transaction, it must comply with the definitions mentioned above. In order to understand that the work contract relationship also remains within the scope of the Law on Consumer Protection, one of the parties must be the consumer and the other party must be the vendor provider. If these conditions are found, it will be possible to mention the consumer transaction and, as a result, the court in charge is the “consumer court”.

The issue of duty is related to public order and should be taken into account by the court at every stage of the trial, and there can be no vested right in the issue of duty. 73/1 of Law No. 6502. in accordance with the article, consumer courts are in charge of disputes listed under this law, and otherwise general courts are in charge.

In a concrete dispute, the plaintiff is a subcontractor, and the defendant is a contractor (provider). In this case, dec the dispute is caused by the work contract, the dispute between the parties does not remain within the scope of the consumer law. On the other hand, it should also be examined whether the commercial court of first instance is in charge. The deputy plaintiff is the defendant in the appeal petition .. According to the information that he is a registered merchant in the Commercial Registry Office, and the plaintiff’s client is a civil engineer and works in the field of interior architecture and decoration, it is understood that both parties are merchants and are related to the commercial business of the parties. In this case, while the court should examine the merits of the work and collect the evidence of the parties and make a decision according to the result, it was not correct to issue a decision on dismissal in writing, and it was considered appropriate to overturn the decision.

Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 21.06.2016 that the appealed provision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons described above, the appeal advance fee paid should be returned to the appellant upon request, and the decision was closed on the way of correction. (¤¤)

Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program