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 call sheet was sent to the interested parties upon the appeal of the judgment issued for the partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case due to the reasons written in the Decriminalization by the defendant’s attorney in a hearing. On a certain day, the plaintiff vek.Hunt…. with the defendant vek.Hunt….After the oral statements of the lawyers who were present at the hearing were heard and it was understood that the appeal petition was in due course, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary.
decision
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, stating that he spent TL 2.950,00 by renting zero vehicles in this process (between 15.01.2012-10.02.2012) and that he terminated the contract for a justified reason, without reserving his rights regarding the excess, TL 79.500,00 and TL 2.950,00 car rental expenses were paid as a vehicle price. Dec.the total amount of 82.450,00 TL.he requested and sued for the collection of the defendant to be decided.
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 situation was a situation that developed completely outside of his client.
According to the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, the defendant wants to deliver a 2010 model vehicle to the plaintiff, despite committing to the sale and delivery of the 2011 model vehicle, so that the delivery debt is not fulfilled in accordance with the contract, the claimant’s request for termination of the contract is justified on the grounds that the partial acceptance of the case, the cost of the vehicle is 79,500.00 TL.he requested and sued for the collection of the defendant to be decided.
Based on the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the compelling reasons, the lack of an error in the assessment of the evidence, the rejection of all appeals of the defendant’s attorney that are not seen on the spot, the APPROVAL of the decision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, the attorney present at the Supreme Court hearing, 1.100,00,-TL, which is appreciated for the benefit of the plaintiff. it was unanimously decided on 05.03.2015 that the trial power of attorney fee should be taken from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff, and the approval fee written below should be taken from the appellant.
