19.Legal Department 2014/6234 E. , 2015/3062 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT : Commercial Court
At the end of the trial of the receivable case between the parties, a summons was sent to the interested parties upon a hearing appeal by the defendant’s attorney of the provision made for the partial acceptance or rejection of the case for the reasons written in the dec. On a certain day, the plaintiff, vek.Hunt…. the defendant and the attorney.Hunt….after the oral statements of the lawyers who were present at the hearing were listened to and it became clear that the appeal was pending, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary.
-K A R A R
Counsel for the plaintiff, the parties held by the Defendant dated 02.01.2012 features of the 2011 model vehicle specified on the proforma invoice 79.500,00 TL price for the sale to the plaintiff agreed to in history and muvekkilinc 04.01.2012 12.01.2012 total 79.500,00 TL paid from the defendant even though the defendant’s vehicle that does not deliver even taken notice that you refrain, thus delivering a car for a client suffered damage, in this process (from 15.01.2012 to 10.02.2012), he stated that he had spent £ 2,950.00 renting zero vehicles, and that he had justified termination of the contract, provided that he reserved the rights to the excess, with £ 79,500.00 paid as the cost of dec vehicle and £ 2,950.00 as the cost of renting a car.the sum of 82.450,00 TL.he asked the defendant to decide on the collection and filed a lawsuit.
The vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff of defendant’s attorney with the contract of sale, whether by the declaration of muvekkilinc vehicle excise duties on behalf of the plaintiff has been paid, the property was transferred to the plaintiff,the plaintiff has been applied for the registration of the vehicle if the vehicle by changing the branch by the Directorate of justifying the legislation also vehicle may be registered as a 2011 model for its registration as a 2010 model, where the correspondence with the relevant authorities will be notified that there was the outcome of that conflict, he requested the dismissal of the case by stating that this is a situation that develops completely outside of his client.
According to the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, despite the defendant’s commitment to the sale and delivery of the 2011 model vehicle, the plaintiff wanted to deliver the 2010 model vehicle, so that the delivery debt was not fulfilled in accordance with the contract, the plaintiff’s request for termination of the contract was justified on the grounds of partial acceptance of the case, the cost of the vehicle is 79,500.00 TL.he asked the defendant to decide on the collection and filed a lawsuit.
According to the articles in the dossier, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons for the necessity, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, the APPROVAL of the decision found in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting all appeals that are not considered on the spot of the defendant’s attorney, 1.100,00,-TL, which was assessed for the benefit of the plaintiff, whose attorney was present at the Supreme Court hearing. it was decided unanimously on 05.03.2015 that the trial attorney’s fee should be taken from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff, and the approval fee written below should be taken from the appellant.
