T.C.
SUPREME
- LAW OFFICE
E. 1997/5184
K. 1997/5705
T. 15.9.1997
- Invoice open-close – determination of whether the price has been paid
- Burden of proof – drop to the defendant in the admission that the Open Bill Price has not been paid
- OBLIGATION TO BRING THE ORIGINAL INVOICE WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE
Summary: The plaintiff seller claimed that the defendant buyer did not pay the price of the bread he received, and the defendant also argued that the price was paid with invoices. The parties presented their evidence and it was understood that the documents examined were copies. If the parties are based on this evidence, the original evidence must be brought in and it must be determined whether the Bills are closed. In case of closed invoice submission, it is necessary to accept that these invoices have been paid by the respondent buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, in this case, it is mandatory to accept that the burden of proof falls on the defendant with the admission that the sale price has not been paid.
Case : due to the case between the parties, the appeal examination of the Provision No. 255-26 dated 6.3.1997 issued by the ( Havsa Court of First Instance) was agreed by the plaintiff’s attorney; after the papers in the file were read, the work was decried and considered necessary. :
Decision: the attorney of the plaintiff claimed that the bread sold and delivered to the defendant company was not paid, claiming that the collection from the defendant with a 54% interest of 174,220,000 pounds, and 40% denial compensation because the pursuit was contested.
The defendant’s attorney asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the bills on which the plaintiff was based were closed bills and that their costs were paid in their submission.
According to the collected evidence and the scope of the file, the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not present evidence other than invoices and dispatch notes, the case could not be proven.
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant had not paid the price of the bread that the buyer had received, and the defendant argued that the price had been paid by invoices. If the sale is in advance, it is clear that the sale price will be made in the event of delivery of the goods, and in this case, the claim that the price was not paid must be proven by the plaintiff. If it is decided that the cost will be paid after delivery of the goods subject to sale, then the buyer must also prove that the sale price has been paid.
The parties submitted their evidence and it became clear that the documents examined were copies. According to the fact that the parties have relied on this evidence, the originals of the evidence should be brought and it should be determined whether the invoices are open or closed. In case of closed invoice submission, it is necessary to accept that these invoices are paid by the defendant buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, in this case, the acceptance that the sale price has not been paid and the acceptance that the burden of proof has fallen on the defendant will be mandatory.
If the parties are based on the books, these books should also be examined through the submission and expert expert and decided within the framework of the result, while the denial of the case with incomplete examination was not considered correct and the Local Court decision should be broken.
Conclusion: for the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 15.9.1997 to return the Local Court decision ( overturning) to the appellant at the request of the appellant’s advance expenses paid.
