Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mistake, Fraud and Duress

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Turkish Contract Law

  • 489 Accesses

Abstract

According to TCO art. 30, a party entering into a contract under a material (fundamental) mistake (error) will not be bound by such a contract. In the Turkish Code of Obligations, there are two types of mistake: the first is a mistake in declaration of will (intention), and the second is a mistake in motive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For further explanations, see Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (1968), Edis (1973), Özsunar (2005).

  2. 2.

    Erreur dans la déclaration, Erklärungsirrtum.

  3. 3.

    Where this discrepancy is created intentionally there is either a reservatio mentalis (mental reservation) or a declaration which is frivolous. See Sect. 1.6.

  4. 4.

    Déclaration de volonté, Willenserklärung.

  5. 5.

    Erreur sur la base nécessaire du contrat, Grundlagenirrtum.

  6. 6.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 36, II, p. 300; Tercier (2004), p. 152; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 23–24, N. 7; Eren (2015), p. 379; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 99.

  7. 7.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 36, II, p. 300; Becker (1941), art. 24, N. 31, art. 23, N. 5; Tercier (2004), p. 152; Berger (2012), p. 324; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 120; Eren (2015), p. 381.

  8. 8.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 37, V, pp. 308–309; Tercier (2004), pp. 152–153; Honsell et al. (2003), art. 24, N. 20–23; Berger (2012), pp. 327–329; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 99–105.

  9. 9.

    Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (1968), p. 161; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 104.

  10. 10.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 107.

  11. 11.

    Engel (1997), p. 339.

  12. 12.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 109.

  13. 13.

    For further explanations see Ergüne (2008).

  14. 14.

    In this sense Oğuzman and Öz (2015) p. 106.

  15. 15.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 110–112.

  16. 16.

    Tercier (2004), p. 155; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 109; von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 38, II, 1, p. 320.

  17. 17.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 38, II, 5, p. 322; Engel (1997), p. 354; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 28, N. 1.

  18. 18.

    Gauch et al. (2008), p. 181; Engel (1997), p. 351; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 446; Kurşat (2003), p. 50.

  19. 19.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 38, I, 4, p. 321; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 28, N. 9; Engel (1997), p. 352; Gauch et al. (2008), p. 182; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 446; Kurşat (2003), p. 51.

  20. 20.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 110.

  21. 21.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 38, II, 6, p. 323; Honsell et al. (2003), art. 28, N. 15–17; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 28, N. 31–33; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 112; Eren (2015), p. 400.

  22. 22.

    Eren (2015), p. 254; Ergüne (2008), pp. 172–173; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 113; Kurşat (2003), p. 127 ff.

  23. 23.

    For further explanations see Karakocalı (2016).

  24. 24.

    Where a person is forced to enter into a contract by direct physical violence there is no declaration of will (intention) made at all, and, thus, the contract cannot be formed.

  25. 25.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 38, III, pp. 325–329; Gauch et al. (2008), pp. 185–187; Engel (1997), pp. 364–368; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 114–116.

  26. 26.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 114.

  27. 27.

    Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 31, N. 41–49; Tercier (2004), p. 157; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 116.

  28. 28.

    Eren (2015), p. 254; Ergüne (2008), pp. 175–176; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 116.

  29. 29.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 117.

References

  • Antalya OG (2012) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 1. Legal, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Aybay A (2011) Borçlar hukuku dersleri genel bölüm. Filiz, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker H (1941) Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Volume VI, Obligationenrecht, 1. Abteilung: Allgemeine Bestimmungen, Art. 1-183. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger B (2012) Allgemeines Schuldrecht. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Edis S (1973) Türk /İsviçre borçlar hukuku sistemine göre akdin lüzumlu vasıflarında hata. Ankara üniversitesi hukuk fakültesi, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel P (1997) Traité des obligations en droit Suisse. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Eren F (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Yetkin, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergüne S (2008) Olumsuz zarar. Beta, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyzioğlu FN (1976) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 1. Fakülteler, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauch P, Schluep WR, Schmid J (2008) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, vol 1. Schulthess, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Honsell H, Vogt NP, Wiegand W (eds) (2003) Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Obligationenrecht 1: Art. 1-529 OR. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakocalı A (2016) Roma Hukukunda ve Türk Hukukunda Korkutma (Metus). Seçkin, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Kılıçoğlu AM (2013) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Turhan, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocayusufpaşaoğlu N (1968) Güven nazariyesi karşısında borç sözleşmelerinde hata kavramı. İstanbul üniversitesi hukuk fakültesi, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocayusufpaşaoğlu N (2014) Borçlar hukuku genel bölüm, vol. 1 (Kocayusufpaşaoğlu/Hatemi/Serozan/Arpacı). Filiz, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurşat Z (2003) Borçlar hukuku alanında hile kavramı. Kazancı, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomer HN (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Oğuzman K, Öz T (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 1. Vedat, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Oser H, Schönenberger W (1929) Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Volume V: Das Obligationenrecht, Erster Halbband: Art. 1-183. Schulthess, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Özkaya E (2014) Yanılma, Aldatma, Korkutma Davaları (Hata-Hile-İkrah). Seçkin, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Özsunar E (2005) Roma ve Türk hukukunda hata. Turhan, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Özsunay E (1983) Borçlar hukuku, vol I. Filiz, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisoğlu S (2014) Türk borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I (2009) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil. Schulthess, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Tekinay SS, Akman S, Burcuoğlu H, Altop A (1993) Tekinay borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Filiz, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Tercier P (2004) Le droit des obligations. Schulthess, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Tercier P, Pichonnaz P, Develioğlu HM (2016) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenoz L, Werro F (éd) (2012) Commentaire romand code des obligations 1: art. 1-529 co. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Bâle

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tuhr A, Peter H (1979) Allgemeiner Teil des Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht, vol 1. Schulthess, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Yıldırım MF (2002) Borçlar hukukuna göre sözleşmenin kuruluşunda hile. Nobel, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    İlhan Helvacı

Authors
  1. İlhan Helvacı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Helvacı, İ. (2017). Mistake, Fraud and Duress. In: Turkish Contract Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60060-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60061-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation