It Consists In Making a Decision On The Appropriate Outcome, Which Will Be Reached By Making an Appropriate Discount If The Criminal Condition That is Attached Is Of a Nature That Will Cause The Economic Ruin of The Defendant

17 May It Consists In Making a Decision On The Appropriate Outcome, Which Will Be Reached By Making an Appropriate Discount If The Criminal Condition That is Attached Is Of a Nature That Will Cause The Economic Ruin of The Defendant

T.C SUPREME COURT 19.Legal Department Basis: 2016/9422 Decision: 2018/1089 Decision Date: 01.03.2018

Abstract: it is not right that the legal interpretations in expert reports issued by the court in violation of the provisions of the contract and the law should be based on the provision. The work to be done by the court, in accordance with the provisions of the contract of the defendant violates the provisions of the contract and the contract liability is determined according to whether the material facts tuition refund that is due to short-term arrest, because of force majeure, it does not pose the business to close, the plaintiff from the defendant the contribution that can be claimed, and the amount of penalty in terms of a consultant or expert witness report on the current financial and economic calculations based on the requested also evaluated whether the defendant will be the undoing of penalties, if the criminal condition requested is of a nature that will cause economic ruin to the defendant, it must consist of making a decision on the appropriate outcome that will be reached by making an appropriate discount. It is against the procedure and the law to decide the dismissal of the case with a misleading evaluation without regard to the aspects described above.

(6098 P. K. m. 136)

Case: at the end of the trial of the claim case between the parties, the file was reviewed and considered by the plaintiff’s attorney during the term of the provision given for dismissal of the case for reasons written in the application.

DECISION

The plaintiff’s attorney, the plaintiff and the defendant 01.04.2012 between the firm-years between 01.04.2016 to be valid and open point-of-sale agreement that was signed, in this context, made a contribution to the defendant, but the defendant’s transfer to a third person in less than a year out of the workplace of the reasons, citing the case of demand arising from the contract without prejudice to the rights of termination of the contract and on the contribution made to the defendant discounted price 92.056,00 TL 80.437 and discounted penalty,the decision to demand and the defendant has prosecuted 00 USD from the collection.

The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that shortly after the signing of the contract, his client was arrested, he was on the verge of bankruptcy due to this unfortunate incident, he was forced to close the workplace, his client did not close the workplace arbitrarily, the amount of criminal conditions requested was exorbitant and would cause his client’s ruin.

By the court, a contract was signed between the plaintiff company and the defendant, the defendant was arrested for being a member of an organization established for the purpose of committing a crime in the first year of the contract, he terminated his activity while the state of detention continues, the date of termination of the activity corresponds to the period of detention, 6 of the contract. in the workplace, in violation of Article 3. it is impossible to perform the contract due to the fact that it does not transfer it to a person, it is not clear how long the state of detention will last, in this case the defendant has no fault, TBK. m. In 136, it is arranged that the debt will expire in the event of an impossibility of perfect performance, it is not possible to ask for criminal conditions because the debt has expired due to impossibility, the plaintiff has delivered 200 kegs of beer to the defendant, TBK. m. In case of the extinction of the debt in accordance with 136, mutual debt loads of the parties of the contracts that they should put each other back in accordance with the provisions of unjust enrichment, goodwill is not obliged to give back to yourself from zenginleseni no reason, the first expert of the defendant as stated in the report of the capital is zero, in other words, the case dismissed on the grounds that it wasn’t a thing in your hand is granted, the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff by counsel.

It is not right that legal interpretations in expert reports issued by the court in violation of the provisions of the contract and the law should be based on the provision. The work to be done by the court, in accordance with the provisions of the contract of the defendant violates the provisions of the contract and the contract liability is determined according to whether the material facts tuition refund that is due to short-term arrest, because of force majeure, it does not pose the business to close, the plaintiff from the defendant the contribution that can be claimed, and the amount of penalty in terms of a consultant or expert witness report on the current financial and economic calculations based on the requested also evaluated whether the defendant will be the undoing of penalties, if the criminal condition requested is of a nature that will cause economic ruin to the defendant, it must consist of making a decision on the appropriate outcome that will be reached by making an appropriate discount. It is against the procedure and the law to decide the dismissal of the case in writing with a misleading evaluation without regard to the aspects described above.

Conclusion: for the reasons described above, it was decided unanimously on 01/03/2018 to overturn the provision for the benefit of the appellant, to return the advance expense to the plaintiff on request. (¤¤)