Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Turkish Contract Law pp 145–165Cite as

Non-performance of the Obligation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 505 Accesses

Abstract

If a debtor fails to perform an obligation, in principle, as long as the performance of the obligation is possible, the creditor may only demand and sue for specific performance of that obligation. If the court accepts a lawsuit filed by a creditor against a debtor for performance of an obligation, then two possibilities arise: (1) the debtor may comply with the court order, fulfil the obligation and thereby extinguish it or (2) the debtor may fail to obey the court order, and the obligation will remain unfulfilled. In the latter case, the creditor is entitled to enforce the court order according to the provisions of the Turkish Code of Bankruptcy and Enforcement.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For further explanations see Başoğlu (2012).

  2. 2.

    Performance in kind, exécution en nature.

  3. 3.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 371.

  4. 4.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 374. For further explanations see Kuru (2016), pp. 412–414; Pekcanıtez et al. (2013), pp. 477–478.

  5. 5.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 374. For further explanations see Oğuzman et al. (2016), pp. 407–408; Steinauer (2002), p. 61.

  6. 6.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 374; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 596.

  7. 7.

    See Chap. 16.

  8. 8.

    Kuru (2016), p. 421; Pekcanıtez et al. (2013), p. 484; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 375.

  9. 9.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 921; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 375.

  10. 10.

    Kuru (2016), p. 421; Pekcanıtez et al. (2013), p. 484.

  11. 11.

    For further explanations see Aydıncık (2013).

  12. 12.

    Kuru (2016), pp. 421–422; Pekcanıtez et al. (2013), p. 484.

  13. 13.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 923–924; Eren (2015), p. 1034; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 377–378, pp. 428–429.

  14. 14.

    Eren (2015), p. 1034; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 924; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 429.

  15. 15.

    The specific rules relating to the bankruptcy are reserved.

  16. 16.

    Pekcanıtez et al. (2013), pp. 476–477. For further explanations see Kuru (2016), pp. 400–404.

  17. 17.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 373; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 347.

  18. 18.

    For further explanations see Kuru (2016), p. 107 ff; Pekcanıtez et al. (2013), p. 182 ff.

  19. 19.

    For further explanations see Gündoğdu (2014).

  20. 20.

    Impossibilium nulla obligatio est: No-one has a legal obligation to do the impossible or there is no obligation to perform an impossible act.

  21. 21.

    If the debtor is not responsible for the impossibility of the performance, then the debtor is released from his obligation (TCO art. 136). Cases in which the debtor is not responsible for the impossibility of performance will be analysed below under Sect. 25.5.

  22. 22.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 411–412; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 99, N. 12, N. 13.

  23. 23.

    See Sect. 5.2.5.

  24. 24.

    See Sect. 25.5.1.

  25. 25.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 372.

  26. 26.

    See Sect. 31.3.2.

  27. 27.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 372.

  28. 28.

    See Sect. 23.4.2.

  29. 29.

    Compare to Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 375 and fn. 36 and pp. 426–427.

  30. 30.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 371.

  31. 31.

    See Sect. 22.2.1.

  32. 32.

    See Sect. 22.2.2.

  33. 33.

    See Sect. 25.5.

  34. 34.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 403.

  35. 35.

    See Sect. 22.4.

  36. 36.

    For further explanations see Tercier (2003), p. 239; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 248, N. 9; Tandoğan (1990), p. 374; Yavuz (2014), p. 351.

  37. 37.

    For further explanations see Gözübüyük (1957).

  38. 38.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 403–405.

  39. 39.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 69, IV, p. 117; Becker (1941), art. 97, N. 58; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 412.

  40. 40.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 69, IV, p. 117; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 404.

  41. 41.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 69, VII, pp. 120–121; Engel (1997), p. 467; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 43, N. 33, art. 103, N. 7.

  42. 42.

    Reisoğlu (2014), p. 359; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 405.

  43. 43.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 1002–1004; Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 226; Engel (1997), p. 468; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 41, N. 46, art. 103, N. 7; von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 69, VII, pp. 121–122.

  44. 44.

    Cf. Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 412.

  45. 45.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 411.

  46. 46.

    For further explanations see Nomer (1996).

  47. 47.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 390; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 42, N. 3–7; Becker (1941), art. 42, N. 4–5.

  48. 48.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 387; Becker (1941), art. 97, N. 34–45.

  49. 49.

    Becker (1941), art. 97, N. 34; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 387.

  50. 50.

    Becker (1941), art. 97, N. 37–39; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 387.

  51. 51.

    For further explanations see Genç Arıdemir (2008).

  52. 52.

    Becker (1941), art. 97, N. 26; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 388–389; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 857; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 356.

  53. 53.

    For further explanations see Eren (1985).

  54. 54.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 380.

  55. 55.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 855; Eren (2015), p. 1069; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 361; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 425.

  56. 56.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 870–872; Eren (2015), p. 1064; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 361; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 425.

  57. 57.

    For further explanations see Baysal (2012); Altınok Ormancı (2016).

  58. 58.

    Reisoğlu (2014), p. 361; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 425.

  59. 59.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 467.

  60. 60.

    See Sect. 22.1.

  61. 61.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 467–468.

  62. 62.

    See Sect. 22.2.3.

  63. 63.

    See Chap. 23.

  64. 64.

    The parties to a contract are also entitled to make an agreement in advance that restricts the debtor’s liability instead of excluding it. The rules concerning non-liability agreements are also applied to these kinds of agreements.

  65. 65.

    See Sect. 5.3.2.

  66. 66.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 409.

  67. 67.

    Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 100, N. 5.

  68. 68.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 410.

  69. 69.

    For further explanations see Şenocak (1995).

  70. 70.

    Eren (2015), p. 1079; Reisoğlu (2014), pp. 364–365; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 419.

  71. 71.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 70, I, 122; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 892; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 413; Eren (2015), p. 1073; Feyzioğlu (1977), pp. 192–193.

  72. 72.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 70, II, 123; Becker (1941), art. 101, N. 9; Engel (1997), p. 740; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 414–415; Eren (2015), p. 1074.

  73. 73.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 415; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 364.

  74. 74.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 896; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 417; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 364.

  75. 75.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 419.

  76. 76.

    Engel (1997), p. 742; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 419; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 365; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 896; Eren (2015), p. 1079.

  77. 77.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 420.

  78. 78.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 70, III, p. 129; Becker (1941), art. 101, N. 14; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 422; Serozan (2014), p. 286, Cf. Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 101, N. 25–30.

  79. 79.

    Engel (1997), p. 743; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 422; Nomer (2015), p. 312.

  80. 80.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 70, I, p. 122; Engel (1997), pp. 743–744; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 422; Nomer (2015), p. 312; Tercier et al. (2016), pp. 391–392.

  81. 81.

    Engel (1997), p. 744; Nomer (2015), p. 312.

  82. 82.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 899–900; Eren (2015), p. 1085; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 423; Reisoğlu (2014), pp. 366–367.

  83. 83.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 70, V, p. 130; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 101, N. 13.

  84. 84.

    See Sect. 1.10.

  85. 85.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 24, VII, p. 193.

  86. 86.

    Reisoğlu (2014), p. 345; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 38; Tercier (2004), p. 125.

  87. 87.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 39–40, Cf. Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), pp. 10–11.

  88. 88.

    Kılıçoğlu (2013), pp. 85–86; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 26, art. 39.

  89. 89.

    Schwenzer (2009), p. 345; Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 205, 979; Eren (2015), pp. 1131–1132; Ergüne (2008), pp. 115–116; von Tuhr and Peter (1979), pp. 193, 318, 404; Serozan (2014), pp. 252–255.

  90. 90.

    There is a specific rule in BGB relating to pre-contractual liability (See BGB § 311 subs. 2, 3).

  91. 91.

    See Sect. 11.1.5.

  92. 92.

    See Sect. 13.3.

References

  • Akman GS (1976) Sorumsuzluk anlaşması. Sulhi garan matbaası, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Altınok Ormancı P (2016) Zararı azaltma külfeti. On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydıncık Ş (2013) Yapma borçlarının ifa edilmemesi ve hukuki sonuçları özellikle tbk m. 113/I kapsamında nama ifa. Vedat, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Başalp N (2011) Sorumsuzluk anlaşmaları. On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Başoğlu B (2012) Türk hukukunda ve mukayeseli hukukta aynen ifa talebi. On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysal B (2012) Zarar görenin kusuru (müterafik kusur). On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eren F (1985) Sorumluluk hukuku açısından uygun illiyet bağı teorisi. Ankara üniversitesi hukuk fakültesi, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyzioğlu FN (1977) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 2. Fakülteler, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauch P, Schluep WR, Emmenegger S (2008a) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, vol 2. Schulthess, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Genç Arıdemir A (2008) Sözleşmeye aykırılıktan doğan manevi tazminat. On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Gözübüyük AP (1957) Hukuki mesuliyet bakımından mücbir sebepler ve beklenmeyen haller. Kazancı, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Gündoğdu F (2014) Borca aykırılık hallerinden kusurlu ifa imkânsızlığı ve hukuki sonuçları. On iki levha, İstanbul

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuru B (2016) İstinaf sistemine göre yazılmış icra ve iflas hukuku. Legal, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomer HN (1996) Haksız fiil sorumluluğunda maddi tazminatın belirlenmesi. Beta, 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 

  • Oğuzman K, Öz T (2016) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 2. Vedat, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Oğuzman K, Seliçi Ö, Oktay Özdemir S (2016) Eşya hukuku. Filiz, 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 

  • Pekcanıtez H, Atalay O, Sungurtekin Özkan M, Özekes M (2013) İcra ve iflas hukuku. Yetkin, Ankara

    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 

  • Serozan R (2014) Borçlar hukuku genel bölüm, vol 3 (Kocayusufpaşaoğlu/Hatemi/Serozan/Arpacı). Filiz, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Şenocak Z (1995) Borçlunun ifa yardımcılarından dolayı sorumluluğu. Dayınlarlı, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinauer PH (2002) Les droits réels, vol 2. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Tandoğan H (1990) Borçlar hukuku özel borç ilişkileri, vol I/1. Evrim, İstanbul

    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 

  • Tercier P (2003) Les contrats spéciaux. Schulthess, Zurich

    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, Escher A (1974) Allgemeiner Teil des Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht, vol 2. Schulthess, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalman S (2006) Türk-İsviçre hukukunda sözleşme görüşmelerinden doğan sorumluluk. Seçkin, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Yavuz C (2014) Türk borçlar hukuku özel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

    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). Non-performance of the Obligation. In: Turkish Contract Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_22

  • 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