Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of UPICC in Turkish Law: Replies to the Questionnaire on the Use of the UPICC in Order to Interpret or Supplement National Contract Law

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Use of the UNIDROIT Principles to Interpret and Supplement Domestic Contract Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 51))

  • 435 Accesses

Abstract

This report examines the use of the UPICC in Turkish law, by way of considering the potential venues the Principles could be used in order to interpret or supplement national contract law. In particular, the report will, in accordance with ‘the Questionnaire on the use of the UPICC in order to interpret or supplement national contract law’ prepared by the general rapporteurs for the 20th IACL General Congress, focus on issues such as permissibility of using UPICC under Turkish law, whether UPICC had been used to interpret or supplement national contract law or in any other way, as well as providing a concise comparison between selected UPICC rules and their counterparts under Turkish law. Finally the report will conclude with an overview on the relevance of those UPICC rules that do not have a comparable alternative in Turkish law and prospects of their application for the purpose of interpreting or supplementing gaps in domestic law.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Change history

  • 14 December 2020

    The original version of Chapter 18 was inadvertently published without incorporating the author’s proof corrections where the author had requested to add the references Oğuz 2001, Erdem 2017 and Dayinlarli 2003.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Turkish Civil Code, article 1, paragraph 2.

  2. 2.

    Turkish Code of Commerce, article 1, rule 2.

  3. 3.

    Oğuzman and Barlas (2016), p. 108.

  4. 4.

    Turkish Code of Commerce, article 2, rule 1.

  5. 5.

    Kotrusz (2009), p. 148; Ayoglu (2011), p. 225 et seq.

  6. 6.

    Ayoglu (2011), p. 228; Sural (2008), p. 160; also see below n 33.

  7. 7.

    The draft also makes reference to UN Convention of International Sale of Goods (CISG), Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and Principles of European Tort Law (PETL), see report of Justice Commission (2008) Draft Turkish Code of Obligations and Report of the Justice Commission (1/499). The Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Available via https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem23/yil01/ss321.pdf, p. 2.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.; cf use of UPICC in other jurisdictions, Oğuz (2001), p. 40; Erdem (2017), pp. 26–27.

  9. 9.

    N.b.: all translations are provided by this author; however, I have referred to Özel (2013) in translating certain legal concepts related to the Code of Obligations.

  10. 10.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 478; Eren (2012), pp. 1128–1129; cf. Kılicoglu (2006), p. 60; Sural (2008), p. 73; Ayoglu (2011), p. 241; İzmirli (2017), p. 190 et seq and p. 205; cf. Dayinlarli (2003), p. 214; also see the Supreme Court (Yargitay) decisions: 13 HD decision no E.1995/9375, K.1995/9860 dated 13 Nov 1995; HGK decision no E. 1996/13-850, K. 1997/186 dated 12 Mar 1997; 19 HD decision no E. 2004/4912, K. 2004/11803 dated 30 Nov 2004; 19. HD decision no E. 2004/8077, K. 2005/6842 dated 20 Jun 2005; 19 HD decision no E.2005/2865, K.2005/11959 dated 1 Dec 2005; 13 HD decision no. E. 2010/2762, K. 2010/12361 dated 29 Sep 2010; HGK decision no E. 2012/13-1220, K. 2013/239 dated 13 Feb 2013; 23 HD decision no E. 2013/8839, K. 2014/1525 dated 3 Mar 2014.

  11. 11.

    Eren (2012), pp. 1135–1137.

  12. 12.

    Sural (2008), pp. 77–78; cf. Ayoglu (2011), pp. 242–243.

  13. 13.

    The Turkish Code of Commerce, articles 56 and 62.

  14. 14.

    From German, “Vertrauenstheorie”, see Eren (2012), p. 152.

  15. 15.

    See the Supreme Court (Yargitay) decisions, HGK decision no E. 2/93, K.29 dated 3 Apr 1963; 4 HD decision no E. 1977/13113, K. 1978/12134 dated 26 Oct 1978; 13. HD decision no: E. 1994/5745, K. 1994/8501 dated 11 Oct 1994; HGK decision no E. 2012/14-606 K. 2013/212 dated 6 Feb 2013; HGK decision no E. 2014/15-2182, K. 2015/1047 dated 18 Mar 2015.

  16. 16.

    Eren (2012), p. 153 et seq; Kılicoglu (2006), pp. 175–176; Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 69 et seq; Sural (2008), p. 94.

  17. 17.

    Eren (2012), p. 471; Sural (2008), p. 95.

  18. 18.

    Above, text to n 4.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Ayoglu (2011), p. 262.

  20. 20.

    Also see, UPICC art. 7.3.1.3, where the aggrieved party is entitled to terminate the contract if the other party is given time to perform his outstanding obligations under the UPICC art. 7.1.5, but nevertheless failed to perform in the allowed time.

  21. 21.

    In essence, this article, as well as the article 124, is much similar to the UPICC art. 7.1.5; however, the former requires the aggrieved party to allow an extra time to the obligor before it can use its right to terminate, Eren (2012), p. 1123, whereas, according to the latter, the aggrieved party is not under an obligation to allow the extra time and, it may terminate the contract in the event of a fundamental breach, see UNIDROIT (2016), p. 236.

  22. 22.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 504 et seq.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Sural (2008), at p. 124 n. 517.

  24. 24.

    See UPICC art. 7.3.1 (c); however, the fact that the obligor is not faulty or negligent is to be taken into account when deciding whether the other party is entitled to damages or can terminate the contract, Eren (2012), p. 1114.

  25. 25.

    See UPICC art. 7.3.1 (e).

  26. 26.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2016), p. 497, “default” here refers to the legal term ‘temerrüt’ used in Turkish law, see id, p. 458 et seq; Eren (2012), p. 1089 et seq.

  27. 27.

    Ayoglu (2011), p. 284.

  28. 28.

    Oğuzman and Barlas (2016), pp. 119–121.

  29. 29.

    Supra, n.5.

  30. 30.

    Sural (2008), p. 157.

  31. 31.

    Oğuzman and Barlas (2016), p. 139.

  32. 32.

    Sural (2010), pp. 261–262.

  33. 33.

    ICC International Court of Arbitration (2003), Decision no: 12174. Available via unilex.info. http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?id=1406. Accessed 9 Nov 2018; Jolivet (2008), p. 136; Ayoglu (2011), p. 232.

References

  • Ayoglu T (2011) Uluslararası Ticari Sözleşmelere Uygulanan Genel Prensipler, Maddi Hükümler ve Ticari Adet – Teamüller Olarak Lex Mercatoria (Lex Mercatoria as general principles, rules and trade customs applied to International Commercial Contracts). Vedat Kitapçılık, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayinlarli K (2003) Milletlerarası Ticari Sözleşmelere İlişkin UNIDROIT İlkeleri (UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts). Public Priv Int Law Bull 23:203–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem E (2017) Milletlerarası Ticaret Hukuku (International Commercial Law). Oniki Levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Eren F (2012) Borçlar Hukuku: Genel Hükümler (Law of obligations: general principles), 14th edn. Yetkin, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • İzmirli LA (2017) Culpa in Contrehendo in the Lex Mercatoria. Public Priv Int Law Bull 37:170–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolivet E (2008) L’harmonisation du droit OHADA des contrats : l’influence des Principes d’UNIDROIT en matière de pratique contractuelle et d’arbitrage. Uniform Law Rev 13:127–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justice Commission (2008) Draft Turkish Code of Obligations and Report of the Justice Commission (1/499). The Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Available via https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem23/yil01/ss321.pdf

  • Kılicoglu A (2006) Borçlar Hukuku: Genel Hükümler (Law of obligations: general principles), 7th edn. Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotrusz J (2009) Gap-filling of the CISG by the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. Uniform Law Rev 14:119–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oğuz A (2001) Hukuk tarihi ve karşılaştırmalı hukuk açısından Uluslararası Ticaret Hukuku (International Commercial Law from the perspective of legal history and comparative law). Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Ankara Univ Fac Law J) 50:11–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Oğuzman K, Barlas N (2016) Medeni Hukuk (Civil law), 22nd edn. Vedat Kitapcilik, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Oğuzman K, Öz T (2016) Borçlar Hukuku: Genel Hükümler (Law of obligations: general principles), vol I, 14th edn. Vedat Kitapçılık, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Özel Ç (2013) Turkish code of obligations. Seçkin, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Sural C (2008) Uluslararası Ticari Sözleşmelere Uygulanacak Hukuk Olarak Unidroit (Özel Hukukun Yeknesaklaştırılması için Uluslararası Enstitü) Prensipleri (UNIDROIT Principles as the Law Applicable to the International Commercial Contracts). Dissertation, Dokuz Eylul University

    Google Scholar 

  • Sural C (2010) Respecting the rules of law: the Unidroit Principles in National Courts and International Arbitration. Vindobona J Int Commer Law Arbitr 14:249–266

    Google Scholar 

  • UNIDROIT (2016) Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts. Available via unidroit.org. https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/commercial-contracts/unidroit-principles-2016

Arbitral Awards

Supreme Court Decisions

  • HGK decision no E. 2/93, K.29 dated 3 Apr 1963

    Google Scholar 

  • 4 HD decision no E. 1977/13113, K. 1978/12134 dated 26 Oct 1978

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. HD decision no: E. 1994/5745, K. 1994/8501 dated 11 Oct 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • 13 HD decision no E.1995/9375, K.1995/9860 dated 13 Nov 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • HGK decision no E. 1996/13-850, K. 1997/186 dated 12 Mar 1997

    Google Scholar 

  • 19 HD decision no E. 2004/4912, K. 2004/11803 dated 30 Nov 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • 19. HD decision no E. 2004/8077, K. 2005/6842 dated 20 Jun 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • 19 HD decision no E.2005/2865, K.2005/11959 dated 1 Dec 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • 13 HD decision no. E. 2010/2762, K. 2010/12361 dated 29 Sep 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • HGK decision no E. 2012/13-1220, K. 2013/239 dated 13 Feb 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • HGK decision no E. 2012/14-606 K. 2013/212 dated 6 Feb 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • 23 HD decision no E. 2013/8839, K. 2014/1525 dated 3 Mar 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • HGK decision no E. 2014/15-2182, K. 2015/1047 dated 18 Mar 2015

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Law, Isparta, Turkey

    Selim Ciger

Authors
  1. Selim Ciger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Selim Ciger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia Law School, New York, NY, USA

    Alejandro Garro

  2. National University of Asuncion, Asuncion, Paraguay

    José Antonio Moreno Rodríguez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ciger, S. (2021). Use of UPICC in Turkish Law: Replies to the Questionnaire on the Use of the UPICC in Order to Interpret or Supplement National Contract Law. In: Garro, A., Moreno Rodríguez, J.A. (eds) Use of the UNIDROIT Principles to Interpret and Supplement Domestic Contract Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 51. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54322-8_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54322-8_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54321-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54322-8

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation