30 May Case Arising From The Contract Of Works And Labor
Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey 15.Legal Department Basis: 2019/2487 Decision: 2020/654 Decision Date: 19.02.2020
Summary: According to the scope of the file … there is no dispute about the payment of the USD down payment, according to the expert report, the contract has been agreed as the expiration date .. the most recent payment by the claimant, in which the payments were not completed in the date .. history shows that progress has been made.In a work contract that includes mutual acts, so that the business owner can ask the contractor to perform his or her work .. according to Article … of the numbered Tbk, he must first perform his own work. In a concrete case, it is understood from the expert report that the plaintiff did not pay the agreed amount of the work price that he had to pay on the delivery date in accordance with the contract no later than the agreed time in the contract, the court should decide to reject the plaintiff’s request for a criminal condition that did not have conditions, while the decision to partially accept it was not correct, it should be violated.
(492 P. K. m. 42)
The appeal examination of the decision made by the Legal Department of the District Court Court with the date and number written above was requested by the defendant’s lawyer at a hearing, the request for a hearing was accepted and the hearing held on 11.02.2020 came to the lawyer of the plaintiff … and the lawyer of the defendant…. After it became clear that the appeal had been granted within the time limit and the lawyers of the parties present had been heard, due to the lack of time, the work was examined and the decision was left to another day. This time, after reading the papers in the file, the need for work was discussed and considered:
SNOW R
Sue, work
against the decision made by the court of First Instance on the partial acceptance of the case, the defendant appealed the decision of the Istanbul Regional Court of justice on the rejection of the application of the appeal, and the defendant appealed.Filed between the defendant and the defendant in the plaintiff’s case dated 13.10.2014
according to the contract, the defendant must deliver 3000 tents that he has undertaken to produce no later than 06.11.2014.
he asked for a decision on the collection of USD 170,000.00 from the defendant over the daily penalty agreed in the contract.In the defendant’s defense, he said that he manufactured the tents, but the plaintiff
he said he did not pay on the terms agreed in the contract and asked for the case to be dismissed.Delivery delayed for 34 days on the respondent by the court of first instance, the plaintiff is permitted to each party upon delivery of the goods resulting from delay in delivery of shipment of falling reservation all the rights of the amount of the penalty calculated from hidden 170.000,00 USD, as a rule, the penalty can be reduced from a debt in which the borrower merchant, however,in cases where a criminal condition high enough to cause economic ruin has been agreed, the case was accepted by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the deduction was accepted by the application of the Supreme Court.it was decided to accept the case over US $ 42,500. 00. Upon the application for appeal by the defendant against this decision … it was decided by the District Court that the defendant’s application for appeal was rejected on the basis.Dated 13.10.2014 held between the parties
according to the contract, the defendant contractor undertakes the construction of 3,000 tents over 355 USD/piece, which must be delivered no later than 06.11.2014, 5. according to the article,it is understood that after 85% of the total amount of each batch of goods to be paid and prepared in advance of US $ 150,000, 00, the loading of the goods will be done. According to the file, there is no dispute about paying a down payment of $ 150,000. 00,according to an expert report
it is seen that the last payment was made by the plaintiff on 31.12.2014, when the payments were not completed on 06.11.2014, which was agreed as the end date of the contract.Works involving mutual acts
in his contract, in order for the business owner to ask the contractor to perform his work, 6097 Tbk 97. according to the article, he must first perform his own work. In the concrete case, the plaintiff,
at the latest in the period agreed in the contract
according to the expert report, he did not pay the agreed amount of the work price he had to pay on the delivery date in accordance with the contract, the court decided to reject the plaintiff’s request for a criminal condition that did not occur, while the decision to partially accept it was not correct, it had to be broken.
Conclusion: HMK 371 of the decision subject to appeal for the reasons described above. in accordance with Article 11 of law 5766, from the payment to the defendant,who is represented by the attorney at the hearing in the Court of Cassation, taking the trial attorney fee of TL 2.540, 00 from the plaintiff. in accordance with the amendment made by Article 42/2-d of the law on fees, the court of Cassation application fee of us $ 218.50, which must be received in accordance with article, is deducted, if any, the return of the appeal fee received in excess to the appellant, since the decision to overturn is related to the decision to reject the application on the basis of HMK 373/1. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided to remove the decision of the District Court Court on the basis of the application rejection and to send a sample of the decision to the District Court of First Instance, which made the decision to re-decide in accordance with the decision to overturn it, to be final on 19.02.2020. (¤¤) < / b
No Comments