T.C.
SUPREME COURT
11. law office
B. 1997/5184
D. 1997/5705
D. 15.9.1997
• THE FACT THAT THE INVOICE IS OPEN – CLOSED is the Determination of Whether the Price has been Paid or Not
* BURDEN OF PROOF – The Cost of an Open Invoice Falls on the Defendant in Recognition of Non-Payment
• THE OBLIGATION TO BRING THE ORIGINAL OF THE INVOICE WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE

ABSTRACT : The plaintiff claimed that the seller did not pay the price of the bread that the defendant buyer had received, and the defendant argued that the price was paid with invoices. The parties presented their evidence and it was understood that the documents examined were copies. Since the parties have relied on this evidence, the originals of the evidence should be brought and it should be determined whether the invoices are closed or not. In case of closed invoice submission, it is necessary to accept that these invoices are paid by the respondent buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, in this case, the acceptance that the cost of the sale has not been paid and the burden of proof has fallen on the defendant is mandatory.

CASE : Due to the lawsuit between the parties, the appeal examination of the judgment No. 255-26 of 6.3.1997 issued by the (Havsa Court of First Instance) was understood by the dectiff; after the papers in the file were read, the work was discussed and considered as necessary:

DECISION: The deputy plaintiff claimed that the bread prices sold and delivered to the defendant company had not been paid, and demanded 54% interest on the 174,220,000 lira receivable and collection from the defendant, and 40% denial compensation because the pursuit was contested.

The defendant’s deputy requested the rejection of the case by arguing that the invoices on which the plaintiff is based are closed invoices and that their cost has been paid upon submission.

According to the evidence collected and the scope of the file, the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not provide evidence other than invoices and waybills and that the case could not be proven.

The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
The plaintiff argued that the seller did not pay the price of the bread that the defendant buyer had received, and the defendant argued that the price was paid with invoices. It is clear that if the sale is in advance, the cost of the sale will be made in the event of delivery of the goods, and in this case, the claim that the price has not been paid must be proved by the plaintiff. If it is agreed that the price will be paid after the delivery of the goods subject to sale, in this case, the buyer must also prove that the sale price has been paid.

The parties presented their evidence and it was understood that the documents examined were copies. Since the parties have relied on this evidence, the originals of the evidence should be brought and it should be determined whether the invoices are open or closed. In case of closed invoice submission, it is necessary to accept that these invoices are paid by the respondent buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, in this case, the acceptance that the cost of the sale has not been paid and the burden of proof has fallen on the defendant is mandatory.
The principles described within the framework of the evidence request copies of invoices is open or closed based on the books of the parties and the determination of whether this is a presentation of the book, and expert witnesses should be decided within the framework of the study and the results, while the rejection of a case with an incomplete review of the court decision had toward unprecedented and local corruption.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 15.9.1997 that the decision of the local court to accept the appeals of the plaintiff and to return (OVERTURN) the appeal fee paid to the appellant at his request would be refunded upon acceptance of the appeals of the plaintiff.

You can read other articles and petition examples by clicking here.