Since The Production Price Is Desirable And The Amount is Determined By The Trial and Expert Report Received, Compensation For Denial Of Execution Cannot Be Ruled

17 May Since The Production Price Is Desirable And The Amount is Determined By The Trial and Expert Report Received, Compensation For Denial Of Execution Cannot Be Ruled

T.C SUPREME COURT 15.Legal Department Basis: 2018/2380 Decision: 2018/1912 Decision Date: 14.05.2018

SUMMARY: a subcontracting agreement between the parties dated 13.03.2012 arranged in accordance with the cost of the plaintiff in the construction of the work; according to the expert report received 52.580,00, identified as misses in the adoption of this portion of the plaintiff’s claim for a while there, the plaintiff’s punitive conditions and legal regulations in the face of the demand for the adoption contract has been partly true. The plaintiff is a subcontractor, the defendant is a contractor, and part of the work that the defendant loads was done to the plaintiff under the contract dated 13.03.2012. 16 of the agreement between the parties. although the criminal condition is agreed in Article 15 of the contract between the owner and the defendant. in accordance with the precedent decision of our department dated 26.09.2016, 2016/14-16 basis, decision no.26.09.2016; because of this provision between the business owner and the contractor, it is not possible to request criminal conditions (Act No. 6098 136, 177, 182. although the claim for criminal conditions must be unequivocally rejected, its partial acceptance is not correct, and since the production price is desirable and the amount is determined by the trial and expert report received,- because it is not liquid – compensation for executive denial cannot be ruled. It was not correct to make a decision contrary to the legal regulations and judicial practices described, and the decision had to be broken for the benefit of the defendant.

(6098 P. K. m. 136, 177, 182)

Case: the above date and number of the written provision of the appeal examination was requested by the party’s deputies and it was understood that the appeal petitions were given within the period, the file returned to the area due to lack was replenished and the papers in the file were read and considered necessary:

The case, building the wrongful termination of the contract due to the cost of manufacturing, cost and penalty enforcement proceedings for the collection of the withdrawal of the appeal, the continuation of the pursuit, and to deny prompt is related to executive compensation by the court, the partial acceptance of the case for decision, the party was appealed by agents within the period.

1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the necessary reasons in accordance with the law, all appeals of the plaintiff’s Attorney, other appeals of the defendant’s attorney that are outside the scope of the following Bend, were not seen in place, they were required to be rejected.

2-attorney of the plaintiff’s client, the defendant undertakes with a tender from the General Directorate of highways; … …(13+896,062 km) … bridge construction, earthworks, pavement construction machinery and labour structures, leveling, shipping, construction, manufacturing production that has taken part due to a landslide while a portion of the Directorate General of highways that are understood because of the lack of road safety and to determine the route that has stopped the construction of the new project, the new project according to the work of other contractors gave it to the defendant, where he did 52.580 corresponds to the cost of manufacture,00 TL and written in the contract 400.000,00 TL 2 for the collection of penalties. He asked for the cancellation of the appeal made in the Executive Directorate’s file 2013/6731.

A claim cannot be made due to a contract that does not appear in the defendant’s commercial records, which does not have legal validity, because the contract with the owner of the business, 15. he argued that there is a provision in the article that the work subject to the lawsuit cannot be subcontracted, that the amount of criminal conditions requested is exorbitant and contrary to fairness, and that the case should be dismissed.

A subcontracting agreement between the parties dated 13.03.2012 arranged in accordance with the cost of the plaintiff in the construction of the work; according to the expert report received 52.580,00, identified as misses in the adoption of this portion of the plaintiff’s claim for a while there, the plaintiff’s punitive conditions and legal regulations in the face of the demand for the adoption contract has been partly true. The plaintiff is a subcontractor, the defendant is a contractor, and part of the work that the defendant loads was done to the plaintiff under the contract dated 13.03.2012. 16 of the agreement between the parties. although the criminal condition is agreed in Article 15 of the contract between the owner and the defendant. in accordance with the precedent decision of our department dated 26.09.2016, 2016/14-16 basis, decision no.26.09.2016; because of this provision between the business owner and the contractor, it is not possible to request criminal conditions (Act No. 6098 136, 177, 182. although the claim for criminal conditions must be unequivocally rejected, its partial acceptance is not correct, and since the production price is desirable and the amount is determined by the trial and expert report received,- because it is not liquid – compensation for executive denial cannot be ruled. It was not correct to make a decision contrary to the legal regulations and judicial practices described, and the decision had to be broken for the benefit of the defendant.

Result: 1 Above. for the reasons described in Paragraph 2, all of the plaintiff’s attorney’s other clean objections to the defendant’s attorney’s rejection. for the reasons described in the paragraph, it was unanimously decided on 14.05.2018 that the provision was broken for the benefit of the defendant, the balance written below was taken from the appellate plaintiff, the appellate advance fee that he paid was returned to the appellate defendant on request, that the decision could be requested for correction within 15 days from the date of notification against the decision. (¤¤)