Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extinguishment of Obligations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Turkish Contract Law

  • 485 Accesses

Abstract

There are several causes of extinguishment of obligations. The normal manner of extinguishment of an obligation is its performance as required. The other causes are set out in the Turkish Code of Obligations in the following order: discharge by agreement, constitution of a new obligation (novation), merger, impossibility of performance and set-off.

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.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 74, I, p. 161; Tercier (2004), p. 259.

  2. 2.

    Eren (2015), p. 1185; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 459; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 535–536.

  3. 3.

    Although the principal obligation is extinguished, the liability for interest connected to any coupons that are independent of the principal deed is not extinguished. Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 535.

  4. 4.

    For further explanations Helvacı (2008), pp. 402–404; Steinauer (2003), p. 177.

  5. 5.

    For further explanations see Turanboy (1998), Gümüş (2015).

  6. 6.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 75, I, p. 173; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 405; Nomer (2015), p. 382; Eren (2015), p. 1270; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 536.

  7. 7.

    Tercier (2004), p. 266; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 115, N. 2; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 538–539; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 986; Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 426.

  8. 8.

    Engel (1997), p. 765; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 115, N. 2; Berger (2012), p. 452.

  9. 9.

    Acte de disposition, Verfügungsgeschäft. See Chap. 14, fn. 5–6.

  10. 10.

    Tercier (2004), p. 266; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 115, N. 11; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 987.

  11. 11.

    Pouvoir de disposer, Verfügungsmacht.

  12. 12.

    Tercier (2004), p. 266; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 115, N. 11; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 538–539; Eren (2015), p. 1271.

  13. 13.

    Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 115, N. 7; Tercier (2004), p. 266; Gauch et al. (2008), p. 194; von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 75, IV, pp. 177–178; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 540; Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 427.

  14. 14.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 540.

  15. 15.

    Berger (2012), pp. 452–453; Becker (1941), art. 115, N. 3.

  16. 16.

    Déclaration de volonté, Willenserklärung.

  17. 17.

    Reisoğlu (2014), p. 405; Tercier et al. (2016), p. 456; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 537.

  18. 18.

    Engel (1997), p. 765; Tercier (2004), p. 267.

  19. 19.

    For further explanations see Koyuncuoğlu (1972), Önay (2016).

  20. 20.

    Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 116, N. 2; Gauch et al. (2008), p. 195; Tercier (2004), p. 261; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 116, N. 1; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 989; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 540.

  21. 21.

    Nomer (2015), p. 389.

  22. 22.

    Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 116, N. 9; Engel (1997), p. 769; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 407; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 542.

  23. 23.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 542; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 992, cf. Eren (2015), p. 1265.

  24. 24.

    Engel (1997), p. 769; Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 437; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 407; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 542.

  25. 25.

    Engel (1997), p. 769; Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 437; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 407; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 542.

  26. 26.

    Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 434; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 541.

  27. 27.

    Pouvoir de disposer, Verfügungsmacht.

  28. 28.

    Tercier (2004), p. 261; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 116, N. 1.

  29. 29.

    Eren (2015), p. 1265; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 542; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 408.

  30. 30.

    Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 451; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 996; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 544.

  31. 31.

    Reisoğlu (2014), p. 409.

  32. 32.

    For further explanations see Toksal (1956).

  33. 33.

    Engel (1997), p. 778.

  34. 34.

    Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 118, N. 2; von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 77, I, p. 187.

  35. 35.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 997; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 547.

  36. 36.

    Tercier (2004), p. 262.

  37. 37.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 548; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 409; Eren (2015), p. 1269.

  38. 38.

    Helvacı (2008), pp. 402–404. On the contrary Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 549.

  39. 39.

    The Turkish Commercial Code sets certain specific rules relating to the transfer of negotiable instruments. For example, any bill of exchange may be transferred by endorsement and the delivery of possession of it even if it is not expressly made out to order (TComC art. 681 par. 1, compare to SCO art. 1001). The endorsement may be made out to the drawee, regardless of whether he has accepted the bill or not, to the drawer or to any other person liable for it. These persons may re-endorse the bill (TComC art. 681 par. 3); Pursuant to the TComC art. 778 par. 1, subcl. a, these rules, unless they are contrary to its nature, also apply to promissory notes. Moreover, a cheque made payable to a specific person with or without the explicit comment ‘to order’ may be transferred by endorsement and the delivery of possession of it (TComC art. 788 par. 1; compare to SCO art. 1108). The endorsement may be made out to the drawer or to any other person liable for it. These persons may re-endorse the cheque (TComC art. 788 par. 3).

  40. 40.

    See Sect. 5.2.5.

  41. 41.

    See Sect. 22.2.3.2.2.

  42. 42.

    See Sect. 22.5.

  43. 43.

    Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 20, N. 4; Tercier (2004), p. 269; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 411; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 999.

  44. 44.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 549; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 411.

  45. 45.

    Tercier (2004), p. 269; Eren (2015), p. 1300; Dural (1976), p. 89, 114.

  46. 46.

    Eren (2015), p. 1300; Dural (1976), p. 89.

  47. 47.

    Tercier (2004), p. 269; Honsell et al. (2003), art. 19/20, N. 46.

  48. 48.

    See Sect. 15.5.

  49. 49.

    Serozan (2014), p. 84; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 551; Eren (2015), p. 1301.

  50. 50.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 551, compare to Eren (2015), pp. 1300–1301.

  51. 51.

    Engel (1997), p. 783; Tercier (2004), p. 272; Tandoğan (1990), pp. 104–118; Nomer and Engin (2017), art. 208, N. 23.

  52. 52.

    Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 119, N. 20.

  53. 53.

    Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 119, N. 20; Eren (2015), pp. 1304–1305; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 556–557.

  54. 54.

    For further explanations see Ercoşkun Şenol (2016).

  55. 55.

    See Chap. 10.

  56. 56.

    Termination of the contract takes effect retroactively (résolution, Rücktritt).

  57. 57.

    Termination of the contract takes effect prospectively (résiliation, Kündigung).

  58. 58.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 742–743.

  59. 59.

    Cf. Öz (1990), pp. 108–111.

  60. 60.

    For further explanations see Aral (1994), Develioğlu (2012).

  61. 61.

    Tercier et al. (2016), p. 469; Nomer (2015), p. 385; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 564.

  62. 62.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 565; Eren (2015), p. 1274; Feyzioğlu (1977), pp. 482–483.

  63. 63.

    Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 1012; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 565.

  64. 64.

    Déclaration de volonté, Willenserklärung.

  65. 65.

    Engel (1997), p. 670; Tercier et al. (2016), p. 470; Eren (2015), p. 1275; Nomer (2015), p. 385; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 565.

  66. 66.

    von Tuhr and Escher (1974), § 79, III, pp. 208–209; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 566; Eren (2015), p. 1275.

  67. 67.

    Tercier et al. (2016), p. 472; Eren (2015), p. 1275; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 566; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 120, N. 2; Tercier (2004), p. 275; Gauch et al. (2008), p. 206.

  68. 68.

    Feyzioğlu (1977), pp. 496–497; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 567; Eren (2015), p. 1277.

  69. 69.

    See Sect. 32.2.3.3.

  70. 70.

    Tercier (2004), p. 276; Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 120, N. 11; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 568; Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 494; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 120, N. 7; Gauch et al. (2008), p. 207.

  71. 71.

    Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 494; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 568.

  72. 72.

    Engel (1997), pp. 672–673; Eren (2015), p. 1276, cf. Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 569.

  73. 73.

    Thévenoz and Werro (2012), art. 120, N. 8; Tercier (2004), p. 277; Eren (2015), p. 1278; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 1017; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 570; Oser and Schönenberger (1929), art. 120, N. 8; Gauch et al. (2008), pp. 208–209.

  74. 74.

    See Sect. 18.3.5.

  75. 75.

    Feyzioğlu (1977), p. 496; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 571–572.

  76. 76.

    Engel (1997), p. 680; Tercier (2004), p. 278; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 573; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 422; Gauch et al. (2008), pp. 209–210.

  77. 77.

    A waiver is an agreement between the debtor and creditor (pactum de non compensando), and not a unilateral legal transaction by either party. Gauch et al. (2008), p. 210; Tercier (2004), pp. 278–279, on the contrary see Engel (1997), p. 680.

  78. 78.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 573.

  79. 79.

    Tercier (2004), p. 274; Engel (1997), p. 675; Nomer (2015), p. 385; Tercier et al. (2016), p. 471; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 573.

  80. 80.

    Tercier et al. (2016), p. 471; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 574.

  81. 81.

    Pouvoir de disposer, Verfügungsmacht.

  82. 82.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 574.

  83. 83.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 575.

  84. 84.

    Engel (1997), p. 679; Feyzioğlu (1977), pp. 510–511; Eren (2015), p. 1279; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 576.

  85. 85.

    Oğuzman and Öz (2015), pp. 577–578.

  86. 86.

    Eren (2015), p. 1281; Reisoğlu (2014), p. 423; Oğuzman and Öz (2015), p. 578.

References

  • Aral F (1994) Türk borçlar hukukunda takas. Savaş, Ankara

    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 

  • Develioğlu HM (2012) Takas. Vedat, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Dural M (1976) Borçlunun sorumlu olmadığı sonraki imkânsızlık (bk. 117). İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ercoşkun Şenol HK (2016) Borçlar hukukunda kısmi imkânsızlık. On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gümüş MA (2015) Türk-İsviçre borçlar hukukunda ibra sözleşmesi. Vedat, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Helvacı İ (2008) Eski medenî kanunumuzla karşılaştırmalı olarak Türk medenî kanununa göre sözleşmeden doğan ipotek hakkı. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyuncuoğlu T (1972) Türk ve İsviçre hukukunda borcun yenilenmesi (novatio). İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurt LM (2016) Borçlunun sorumlu olmadığı sonraki imkânsızlık. Yetkin, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomer HN, Engin Bİ (2017) Türk borçlar kanunu şerhi, özel borç ilişkileri, Volume 1: satış sözleşmesi. Seçkin, Ankara

    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 

  • Önay I (2016) Yenileme. On iki levha, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Öz T (1990) Sebepsiz zenginleşme. Kazancı, 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinauer PH (2003) Les droits réels, vol 3. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Tandoğan H (1990) 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Toksal BM (1956) Hukuki cephesiyle hesabı cari. İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Turanboy KN (1998) İbra sözleşmesi. Ankara

    Google Scholar 

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

    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). Extinguishment of Obligations. In: Turkish Contract Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_25

  • 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