Effect Of Abandoning The Construction Contract in Exchange For Floors On Third Parties

23 May Effect Of Abandoning The Construction Contract in Exchange For Floors On Third Parties

In our country, in parallel with industrialization, even faster than industrialization
the phenomenon of developing urbanization and the problem of housing have developed at the same speed. Since policies aimed at creating cheap labor by attracting citizens to large cities have not been implemented together with serious planning, the solution of the housing needs of large stacks has been left to its own flow. This practice, on the one hand, leads to slumming, on the other hand, to Crooked urbanization
references Housing projects implemented by the state were never in the beginning, but are now inadequate. In addition, not only in large cities, but also in Anatolia, the form of production is moving from agriculture to industry, and in parallel, even in small cities, there is an intense migration from rural areas to the city. In small cities, public housing projects of the state are not implemented. Thus, the solution of the housing problem is abandoned to the flow of the market, without connecting to any plan. The market, to solve this need, apartment type construction
prioritized, thus, construction began by the hands of contractors. The supply of land to meet this need has also, with exceptions, been left on the market, contractors have satisfied the need for land by following up empty plots and making a “construction contract in exchange for a floor” (as defined in the Mk, “construction contract in exchange for a share of land”) with their owners. Thus, the disputes arising from the construction contracts in exchange for floors have marked the last thirty-forty years.
The most common of these disputes is from a construction contract in exchange for a floor,
it is about whether it is possible to return in such a way as to have effective results. As is known, the construction contract for the floor is a mixed qualified contract
. Contracts that constitute a mixed contract are a” contract of exception “and a”contract of promise of sale of real estate”. The owner of the land from the akites is the one who promises the sale of the real estate, and the Contractor promises to buy this real estate. This
from the point of view, the contract is a “promise of sale of real estate”. But instead of paying for the purchase of the real estate, the contractor will build on this real estate and give part of this building to the owner of the land. From this point of view, the contract is an exception. The validity of this mixed agreement should be made in the form of at least notarized regulation, tied to the official form, with the view that the promise of sale of real estate is dominant
has been adopted.
Floor equivalent construction contract, from the point of view of the type of contract, ani
it’s one of those contracts. In other words, the parties fulfill their debts arising from this contract at once and get rid of the debt; the landowner transfers the deed to the contractor at once, the contractor is also a taxpayer by completing the construction and delivering it to the landowner at once. From this agreement, the lease agreement vs.de as it is, there is no widespread, recurring debt of multiple acts to time. However, in particular, the contractor’s debt to deliver the construction, which takes a long time, is fulfilled over time
it’s a debt that can be brought in. In this case, during the execution of the contract, there are often cases such as interfering with third parties, some people buying apartments from the contractor before the delivery debt is fulfilled. Furthermore, since the performance is actually mandatory over time, the legal institutions that will be applied in the case of partial performance have created hesitation. In particular, the contractor’s construction debt is defaulted in whole or in part, in performance
if it falls, it is debated whether the land owner has the opportunity to return from the contract in accordance with BK 106-108. Because in case of rotation, the parties are obliged to give back to each other what they have received. However, if a part of the construction has been done, dismantling this part will require a lot of damage. If the construction left on the land will be the owner of the land. In that case, the land owner has the right to return to the land in such a way that it is effective, based on the fact that the contract is sudden
is it right to be recognized? Or should the owner of the land be given the opportunity to terminate, as in the case of continuous acts, instead of returning from the contract? As is known, termination is a way to terminate akdin’s results in a way that is effective in the future in continuous contracts. In other words, at termination, the contract continues to be valid until the moment of termination, and legal consequences arise after the moment of termination. The Supreme Court attributed this problem to an average formula;
he generally kept open the possibility of returning from the contract-in such a way as to be effective backwards; however, akdin acknowledged that it could be effectively terminated forward if the nature and characteristics of the event were justified, especially if a significant part of the construction had been done.