YANILANIN TAZMİNAT SORUMLULUĞU
Date
2021-11-03
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nun 35. maddesi yanılanın tazminat
sorumluluğunu düzenlemektedir. Bu kapsamda yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğunun
doğabilmesi için öncelikle yanılmanın esaslı olması gerekir. Zira yanılan Türk Borçlar
Kanunu 30. maddesi gereğince esaslı yanılma nedeniyle sözleşmeyi iptal edebilir.
Ancak yanılan sözleşmeyi iptal edebilme hakkını Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nun 34.
maddesi gereğince dürüstlük kuralına aykırı bir şekilde kullanamamaktadır.
Esaslı yanılma nedeniyle sözleşmenin iptal edilebilmesi kusur şartına bağlı
değildir. Yanılan yanılmasında kusurlu olsa dahi sözleşmeyi iptal edebilir. Bu nedenle
karşı tarafın sözleşmenin geçerli olarak kurulacağına olan haklı güveninin
korunabilmesi için yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğu kanunda düzenlemiştir. Yanılanın
tazminat sorumluluğu bir culpa in contrahendo sorumluluğu olup bu sorumluluk güven
sorumluluğunun sözleşme öncesindeki görünümünü oluşturmaktadır.
Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğu bir kusur sorumluluğudur. Bu anlamda
yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğunun doğabilmesi için yanılanın yanılmasında kusurlu
olması ve Türk Borçlar Kanunu 35. maddesinde belirtilen diğer şartların bulunması
gerekir. Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğunun kapsamında kural olarak menfi zarar
bulunmakta olup istisnai olarak müspet zarar da tazmin edilebilmektedir.
Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğu, Türk Borçlar Kanunun ilgili hükümleri
doğrultusunda sorumsuzluk anlaşmasıyla sınırlandırılabilir veya kaldırılabilir.
Yanılanın tazminat sorumluluğuna ilişkin hükümlerin Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nda
düzenlenen bazı kurumların hükümleriyle yarışması da mümkündür.
Description
Liability for Compensation of the Mistaken Party
ABSTRACT: Article 35 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TCO) regulates the liability for compensation of the mistaken party. In this context, in order for the compensation liability of the mistaken party to arise, the mistake is required to be fundamental. For, in accordance with Article 30 of the TCO, the mistaken party can rescind the contract retrospectively due to fundamental mistake. However, mistaken party cannot exercise the right to rescind the contract in violation of the principle of honesty in accordance with art. 34 of the TCO. The rescission of contract due to fundamental mistake does not depend on the condition of fault. The mistaken party can rescind the contract even if mistaken party is faulty in this mistake. For this reason, in order to protect the rightful trust of the non mistaken party that the contract will be established validly, the compensation liability of the mistaken party is regulated by law. The liability for compensation of the mistaken party is a liability of culpa in contrahendo and this liability constitutes the pre-contractual aspect of the liability of confidence. Liability for compensation of the mistaken party is a fault-based liability. In this sense, in order for the mistaken party to be liable for compensation, mistaken party must be erroneous in this mistake and other conditions specified in Article 35 of the TCO must also be present. As a rule, negative damages are included within the scope of the compensation liability of the mistaken party, and exceptionally positive damages can also be compensated. Liability for compensation of the mistaken party may be limited or removed by an irresponsibility agreement in line with the relevant provisions of the TCO. It is also possible that the provisions regarding the compensation liability of the mistaken party compete with the provisions of some institutions regulated in the TCO.
ABSTRACT: Article 35 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TCO) regulates the liability for compensation of the mistaken party. In this context, in order for the compensation liability of the mistaken party to arise, the mistake is required to be fundamental. For, in accordance with Article 30 of the TCO, the mistaken party can rescind the contract retrospectively due to fundamental mistake. However, mistaken party cannot exercise the right to rescind the contract in violation of the principle of honesty in accordance with art. 34 of the TCO. The rescission of contract due to fundamental mistake does not depend on the condition of fault. The mistaken party can rescind the contract even if mistaken party is faulty in this mistake. For this reason, in order to protect the rightful trust of the non mistaken party that the contract will be established validly, the compensation liability of the mistaken party is regulated by law. The liability for compensation of the mistaken party is a liability of culpa in contrahendo and this liability constitutes the pre-contractual aspect of the liability of confidence. Liability for compensation of the mistaken party is a fault-based liability. In this sense, in order for the mistaken party to be liable for compensation, mistaken party must be erroneous in this mistake and other conditions specified in Article 35 of the TCO must also be present. As a rule, negative damages are included within the scope of the compensation liability of the mistaken party, and exceptionally positive damages can also be compensated. Liability for compensation of the mistaken party may be limited or removed by an irresponsibility agreement in line with the relevant provisions of the TCO. It is also possible that the provisions regarding the compensation liability of the mistaken party compete with the provisions of some institutions regulated in the TCO.