Skip to main content

Agency

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Turkish Contract Law
  • 467 Accesses

Abstract

A person (the agent) may make a legal transaction, especially a contract, in the name of and on behalf of another person (the principal). In the case of a contract, there may be three persons: an agent, a principal and the other party to the contract. If the agent has the authority and acts in the name of and on behalf of the principal, the contract binds the principal. The agent has neither rights nor obligations with regard to the concluded contract between the parties. Such a case is referred to as direct agency. It should be noted that there are certain legal transactions that cannot be made by an agent such as an engagement, a marriage and a testamentary disposition.

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

Access this chapter

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.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 41, I, p. 348; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 32, N. 4; Engel (1997), p. 374; Eren (2015), p. 427; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 212.

  2. 2.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 41, I, 1, p. 349; Engel (1997), pp. 373–374; Berger (2012), p. 273; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 217; Nomer (2015), p. 125.

  3. 3.

    For further explanations see İnceoğlu (2009).

  4. 4.

    Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 32, N. 19; Engel (1997), p. 381; Berger (2012), p. 278; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 151; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 220.

  5. 5.

    Déclaration de volonté, Willenserklärung.

  6. 6.

    Engel (1997), p. 381.

  7. 7.

    Eren (2015), p. 440; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 218–219.

  8. 8.

    Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 32, N. 26, art. 34, N. 2; von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 42, II, p. 359; Engel (1997), p. 382; Berger (2012), p. 280; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 176; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 219.

  9. 9.

    Section 13.2.1.1.

  10. 10.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 42, IV, 3, p. 361; Engel (1997), p. 389; Gauch et al. (2008), p. 310; Eren (2015), pp. 441–442; Feyzioğlu (1976), p. 411.

  11. 11.

    Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 32, N. 25; von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 42, I, p. 355; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 33, N. 9; Gauch et al. (2008), p. 308.

  12. 12.

    Engel (1997), p. 384; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 33, N. 9; Nomer (2015), p. 126; Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 173–174.

  13. 13.

    For further explanations see Akünal (1975).

  14. 14.

    See Chap. 32.

  15. 15.

    See Chap. 33.

  16. 16.

    For further explanations see Kutlu Sungurbey (1988).

  17. 17.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 241; Tercier et al. (2016), p. 137.

  18. 18.

    Tercier (2004), p. 91.

  19. 19.

    Tercier et al. (2016), p. 137; Tercier (2004), p. 91.

  20. 20.

    See Sect. 22.2.3.3.1.

  21. 21.

    Eren (2015), p. 439; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 176; Berger (2012), p. 280.

  22. 22.

    TCO.art.583/par.2.

  23. 23.

    Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), pp. 702–703; Nomer (2015), p. 132; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 235.

  24. 24.

    Engel (1997), p. 407; Tercier (2004), p. 94; Berger (2012), p. 274; Kocayusufpaşaoğlu (2014), p. 630; Tercier et al. (2016), p. 144; Nomer (2015), p. 123.

  25. 25.

    von Tuhr and Peter (1979), § 41, I, p. 348. For further explanations see Yavuz (1983).

References

  • Akünal T (1975) Türk-İsviçre borçlar kanununda ilgili için işlem teorisi. İstanbul üniversitesi, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Akyol Ş (2009) Türk medeni hukukunda temsil. Vedat, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Esener T (1961) Sâlahiyete müstenit temsil. Ankara üniversitesi hukuk fakültesi, Ankara

    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 

  • İnceoğlu MM (2009) Borçlar hukukunda doğrudan temsil. On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutlu Sungurbey A (1988) Yetkisiz temsil özellikle culpa in contrahendo (sözleşmenin görüşülmesinde kusur) ve olumsuz zarar. 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 

  • Özdemir E (1994) Türk hukukunda yetkiye dayanan temsil ve nam-ı müstear uygulaması. Adalet, 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 

  • Yavuz C (1983) Türk-İsviçre ve Fransız medeni hukuklarında dolaylı temsil. İstanbul üniversitesi, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Helvacı, İ. (2017). Agency. In: Turkish Contract Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_13

  • 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