Judge’s Sentencing Reduction

06 May Judge’s Sentencing Reduction

T.C.

SUPREME

LEGAL DEPARTMENT
2015/28987
2017/12575
18.12.2017
* Claim request ( the plaintiff has signed between the defendant and the seller by finding the properties of the property in accordance with the brokerage agreement sought by the seller to sign the purchase and sale contract-the court must decide whether the criminal condition requested from the defendant who renounces the sales contract is exorbitant or not – the judge may )

* The criminal condition is exorbitant ( the judge considers the penalties exorbitant with criticism of the taxpayer/the socio-economic situation of the parties should be investigated and an evaluation of whether the criminal condition is exorbitant should be decided in accordance with the result. )

* The judge’S reduction in the criminal condition ( in the context of the evidence found in the file by the court, an evaluation of whether the criminal condition is exorbitant or exorbitant, while a decision in accordance with the result should be made by making a discount if it is exorbitant, the total removal of the criminal condition should be )

818 / m.161

Summary: the case is related to the claim prompt.

In accordance with Article 161/of the code of obligations, it is stated that the judge is liable for the penalties deemed exorbitant and that this provision should be evaluated by res’en, and that the socio-economic situation of the parties should be investigated and an evaluation of whether the criminal condition is exorbitant should be made and the decision

No. 818, B.K.according to the last article 161 of nun contracts, the judge may make a discount on the penal clause deemed exorbitant, and there is no regulation that he can remove it altogether.

In the context of the evidence in the file, the court should make an assessment of whether the criminal condition is exorbitant or not, and a decision appropriate to the outcome should be made by making a discount if it is exorbitant, while it is inconclusive that the criminal condition should be decided by removing it altogether.

Case: at the end of the trial of the claim case between the parties, it was discussed and considered by the plaintiff’s lawyer upon the appeal of the case due to the reasons written in the decree, partly for acceptance and partly for rejection.:

Decision: it is decided that the claimant mediates the signing of the purchase and sale contract with the seller by finding the properties he sought in accordance with the brokerage agreement signed with the defendant, that the commission fee of 3% of TL 218.000. 00, which is the value of the immovable in the contract,will be paid by the seller, and 3% by the buyer, and, the defendant refused to purchase the property on 22.1.2008 both parties should pay the commission fee to pay despite the notification sent to the payment was not made,claiming that 13.080.00 TL from the date of default, together with the commercial interest to be collected from the defendant requested to be decided.

The defendant has asked for a dismissal.

The court, with the partial acceptance of the case,decided that TL 6,540.00 should be collected from the defendant and given to the plaintiff with the commercial interest to be processed as of 02.02.2008, and that the demand for excess should be rejected; the decision was appealed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, as a real estate broker, met the defendant and the owner of the apartment outside the case and signed a contract to sell the apartment, the defendant then refused to buy the apartment and opened the case for the collection of TL 13,080.00,which is the commission fee that both parties must pay as per the contract, after the court has appealed the decision; According to the contract dated 08.01.2008, 3% commission fee is decided and the other 3% is a penal condition, the judges in accordance with the last article 161/of the Code of Obligations and the penalties deemed exorbitant by the judge is liable with criticism and this provision should be evaluated res’en stated that the socio-economic situation of the parties is investigated and an evaluation on whether the Penal condition is exorbitant No. 818, B.K.according to the last article 161 of nun contracts, the judge may make a discount on the penal clause deemed exorbitant, and there is no regulation that he can remove it altogether. After these statements, the above mentioned legal regulation is taken into consideration and within the scope of the evidence in the file, an evaluation of whether the criminal condition is exorbitant or not ,while the decision of the criminal condition by removing it completely is against the procedure and the law, and requires a reversal.

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 18.12.2017 that the provision which was appealed for the benefit of the plaintiff on the reasons described above, the refund of the fees received in advance upon request, in accordance with article 440/III-1 of Humk, the way of Correction of the decision was closed.