T.C.
\nSUPREME
\n11. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
\nE. 1997\/5184
\nK. 1997\/5705
\nT. 15.9.1997
\n* Open \u2013 close invoice-determination of whether the price has been paid
\n* Burden of proof \u2013 fall to the defendant in the admission that the Open Bill Price has not been paid
\n* THE OBLIGATION TO BRING THE ORIGINAL WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THE INVOICE<\/p>\n
Summary: the plaintiff seller claimed that the defendant did not pay the price of the bread received by the buyer, and the defendant argued that the price was paid by the bills. The parties presented their evidence and it was understood that the documents being examined were surrogates. Since the parties are based on this evidence, the originals of the evidence must be brought and whether the Bills are closed or not must be determined. In case of submission of a closed invoice, it must be accepted that these invoices are paid by the respondent buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, in this case, the acceptance that the sale price has not been paid and that the burden of proof falls on the defendant is mandatory.<\/p>\n
Case: due to the case between the parties, the court of First Instance ( Havsa Court of First Instance) issued by 6.3.1997 and 255-26 decision of the appellate examination of the plaintiff is understood by the attorney; after reading the papers in the file, the work was discussed and considered due to:<\/p>\n
Verdict: the attorney of the plaintiff claimed the collection of 174,220,000 liras from the defendant with 54% interest, and 40% denial compensation because the follow-up was objected to, claiming that the bread prices sold and delivered to the defendant company had not been paid.<\/p>\n
The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case by arguing that the bills on which the plaintiff is based are closed bills and that their costs are paid in his presentation.<\/p>\n
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not present evidence other than invoices and dispatch notes, according to the evidence collected and the scope of the file, and that the case could not be proved.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision.
\nThe plaintiff seller claimed that the defendant did not pay the price of the bread that the buyer had received, and the defendant argued that the price had been paid by the bills. If the sale is in advance, it is clear that the sale price will be made in the case of the delivery of the goods, and in this case, the claim that the price has not been paid must be proved by the plaintiff. The buyer must prove that the sale price has been paid if it is agreed that the price will be paid after the delivery of the goods subject to sale.<\/p>\n
The parties presented their evidence and it was understood that the documents being examined were surrogates. According to the fact that the parties are based on this evidence, the origin of the evidence must be brought and whether the invoices are open or closed. In case of submission of a closed invoice, it must be accepted that these invoices are paid by the respondent buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, in this case, the acceptance that the sale price has not been paid and the acceptance that the burden of proof falls on the defendant will be compulsory.
\nIf the parties are based on the books, it is necessary to submit the books and to examine them through expert experts and to decide on their results, the rejection of the case by incomplete examination was not seen as correct and the decision of the local court was to be annulled.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 15.9.1997 that the decision of the Local Court ( overturned) with the acceptance of the appeals appeals of the plaintiff party for the reasons described above, and the refund of the cash fee paid to the appellant at the request of the appellant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME 11. LEGAL DEPARTMENT E. 1997\/5184 K. 1997\/5705 T. 15.9.1997 * Open \u2013 close invoice-determination of whether the price has been paid * Burden of proof \u2013 fall to the defendant in the admission that the Open Bill Price has not been paid *…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,755,220,218,754],"yoast_head":"\n