T.C. SUPREME
19.Legal Department

Basis: 2016/537
Decision: 2016/10689
Decision Date: 14.06.2016

CASE FOR REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE GOODS – THE EXPERT REPORT ON DEDUCTING THE PRICE IS NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE EXAMINATION AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR INSPECTION – THE FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A PROVISION BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EXPERT REPORT AND INCOMPLETE EXAMINATION

Summary: The Year of production of the tractor subject to the case.. it is considered a model and tractor .. it is understood she was registered as a model. The court gave a discount on the price based on this. But the expert report on deducting the price is not based on adequate examination and research and is not conducive to audit. In this case, it was not considered correct to establish a provision on the basis of insufficient expert report and incomplete review, while taking into account the objections of the defendant’s attorney to the expert report and making an additional report from the expert and making an appropriate decision on the outcome.

(6502 P. K. m. 8)

Case and decision: at the end of the trial of the case of changing the defective property between the parties, the case was reviewed by the deputies of the parties during the term of the provision given for partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case for reasons written in the ad, the file was examined, the need was discussed and considered.

The case is that of the tractor model purchased from the defendant .. as a model, it relates to the demand to replace the defective product with a new one based on the claim that it was sold defective.

Counsel for the defendant, the subject of the lawsuit is still licensed for the tractor.. because the model is registered, there can be no mention of a defective product and the provisions on a defective product cannot be applied, as the tractor that the plaintiff received allegedly … not the model .. he asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that it was a matter related to the production of the Year written on the parts or body of the tractor.

According to the expert report adopted by the court, the eligibility document date of the tractor subject to the case ..according to the relevant legislation due to be after the model year ….. date, but to the defendant.. it was sold as a model, accordingly, the subject of the lawsuit is a disgrace to the tractor, the tractor .. although the plaintiff has informed the plaintiff that he wants to exercise his right to return from the contract as a result of the warning made at the point of exercising his other electoral rights, the plaintiff has stated that he wants to exercise his right to return from the contract due to the shame caused by the difference in the model.. TL is the price of the tractor subject to the lawsuit.. on the grounds that the exercise of the right to return from the contract will not comply with the rules of right and self-determination in terms of the concrete event, with the partial acceptance of the case, the sale price will be reduced ..it was decided that the defendant should be charged, and the sentence was appealed by the deputies of the parties.

1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence based on the decision and the necessary reasons, the lack of accuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, all appeals that were not seen in place of the plaintiff’s attorney, and other appeals that were not seen in place of the defendant’s Attorney other than the following bent were required to be rejected.

2-the year of production of the tractor subject to the case.. it is considered a model and tractor .. it is understood she was registered as a model. The court gave a discount on the price based on this. But the expert report on deducting the price is not based on adequate examination and research and is not conducive to audit. In this case, it was not considered correct to establish a written decision based on insufficient expert report and incomplete examination, while taking into account the objections of the defendant’s attorney to the expert report and making an additional report from the expert and making an appropriate decision.

Conclusion: for the reason described in Paragraph (1) above, it was decided unanimously on 14.06.2016 to reject all appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney and other appeals of the defendant’s attorney, to break the provision for the reason specified in Paragraph (2), to return the advance expenses on request.