09 Mar SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE GOODS
T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
19.law office
Base: 2016/537
Decision: 2016/10689
Date of Decision: 14.06.2016
CASE OF REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE GOODS – THE EXPERT REPORT ON THE DEDUCTION OF THE PRICE IS NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE EXAMINATION AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR AUDIT – THE INADEQUACY OF THE PROVISION BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EXPERT REPORT AND INCOMPLETE EXAMINATION
SUMMARY: The subject of the lawsuit is the year of manufacture of the tractor.. the model is also considered to be a tractor .. it is understood that it was registered as a model. The court has made a discount on the price based on this. However, the expert report on the reduction of the price is not based on adequate examination and research and is not conducive to audit. In this case, considering the objections of the defendant’s attorney to the expert report, october additional report should be obtained from the expert and an appropriate decision should be made as a result, while it was not considered correct to make a decision otherwise based on the insufficient expert report and incomplete review.
(6502 Pp. K. m. 8)
Case and Decision: At the end of the trial of the defective goods replacement case between the parties, the file was examined, the file was discussed and considered as necessary after the appeal of the decision made for partial acceptance or partial rejection of the case for written reasons by the attorneys of the parties within the period of decency.
The case is that of the tractor model purchased from the defendant.. it is related to the request to replace the defective product with a new one based on the claim that it was sold defective as a model.
The defendant’s deputy is still on the license of the tractor subject to the lawsuit.. since the model is registered, there can be no mention of a defective product and the provisions on defective goods cannot be applied, as the claimant claims that the tractor he bought … is not a model, .. arguing that it is a model, that the year written on the parts or body of the tractor is a production-related issue, he asked for a dismissal of the case.
As well as the expert report adopted by the court, the date of the certificate of conformity of the tractor subject to the case ..due to the fact that after the model year in accordance with the relevant legislation ….. it is historical, but only to the defendant.. it is sold as a model, according to which the tractor in question of the lawsuit is defective, the tractor .. although the plaintiff has informed the plaintiff that he wants to exercise his right to return from the contract as a result of the warning made at the point of exercising his other electoral rights because he does not have a model, the plaintiff is aware of the damage of the buyer due to the shame caused by the model difference.. TL, if the subject of the lawsuit is the price of the tractor.. on the grounds that it is, therefore, the exercise of the right to return from the contract will not comply with the rules of right and nefaset in terms of a concrete event, by partially accepting the case and reducing the sale price..it was decided to collect the from the defendant, the verdict was appealed by the party’s deputies.
1- According to the articles in the dossier, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons required, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, all appeals not seen on the spot of the plaintiff’s attorney and other appeals not seen on the spot of the defendant’s attorney were rejected.
2- The subject of the lawsuit is the year of manufacture of the tractor.. the model is also considered to be a tractor .. it is understood that it was registered as a model. The court has made a discount on the price based on this. However, the expert report on the reduction of the price is not based on adequate examination and research and is not conducive to audit. In this case, considering the objections of the defendant’s attorney to the expert report, october additional report should be obtained from the expert and an appropriate decision should be made as a result, while it was not considered correct to establish a provision in writing based on an insufficient expert report and incomplete review.
Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 14.06.2016 to reject all appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney and other appeals of the defendant’s attorney for the reason described in paragraph (1) above, to OVERTURN the provision for the reason specified in paragraph (2), to refund the advance fee on request. (¤¤)
No Comments