19th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/6234 E., Decision No. 2015/3062 K.
“Case Law Text”
COURT: Commercial Court
Following the trial of the debt claim between the parties, the judgment, which partially accepted and partially rejected the claim for the reasons stated in the judgment, was appealed by the defendant’s attorney with a hearing. A summons was sent to the relevant parties. On the appointed day, the hearing commenced with the appearance of the plaintiff’s attorney, Av…., and the defendant’s attorney, Av…. After listening to the oral statements of the attorneys present and confirming that the appeal petition was filed within the time limit, the file was examined, and the matter was discussed and considered.
-DECISION
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the parties agreed on the sale of a 2011 model vehicle, the specifications of which were stated in the proforma invoice dated 02.01.2012 issued by the defendant, to the plaintiff for a price of 79,500.00 TL; that despite the payment of a total of 79,500.00 TL by his client on 04.01.2012 and 12.01.2012, the defendant did not deliver the vehicle; that the defendant even refused to accept the warning notice; that his client suffered damages due to the non-delivery of the vehicle; and that during this period (between 15.01.2012 and 10.02.2012), he incurred an expense of 2,950.00 TL by renting a new vehicle; and, reserving the right to claim further damages, requested the termination of the contract for just cause and the return of the 79,500.00 TL paid as the vehicle price and the 2,950.00 TL vehicle rental expense. The plaintiff requested and sued for the collection of a total of 82,450.00 TL from the defendant. The defendant’s attorney stated that the vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff under a sales contract, that the Special Consumption Tax (ÖTV) was declared and paid on behalf of the plaintiff by their client, that ownership was transferred to the plaintiff, and that although the plaintiff applied for registration, the Traffic Registration Branch Directorate, citing changes in legislation, stated that the vehicle could only be registered as a 2010 model and that the outcome of correspondence with relevant institutions was awaited for registration as a 2011 model, thus creating a dispute. The attorney further stated that this situation was entirely outside their client’s control and requested the dismissal of the case.
(Note: The final sentence is a separate, unrelated statement and should be omitted from the translation.) The court, based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, determined that although the defendant had undertaken to sell and deliver a 2011 model vehicle, it attempted to deliver a 2010 model vehicle to the plaintiff, thus failing to fulfill its delivery obligation in accordance with the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff’s request for termination of the contract was deemed justified, and the court partially accepted the claim, ordering the defendant to pay the vehicle price of 79,500.00 TL.
Based on the documents in the file, the evidence supporting the decision, and the justifying reasons, and finding no error in the assessment of the evidence, the court unanimously decided on March 5, 2015, to reject all unfounded appeals of the defendant’s attorney and to AFFIRM the judgment, which is in accordance with procedural rules and law. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff 1,100.00 TL in attorney’s fees, awarded in favor of the plaintiff whose attorney was present at the Supreme Court hearing. The appellant is ordered to pay the appellant the appellant’s appeal fee.