{"title":"The Compensation That May Be Claimed in Case the Agreement Ratified Upon by the Effect of the Fraud","authors":"Hülya ATLAN GÜRER","doi":"10.30915/abd.1160610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 39/2 has adopted the basis that the right to indemnity will not be abolished ipso facto if the contracting party, whose intention defected in consent, has ratified the agreement. Thus, the defrauded party may request compensation for the damage caused by the fraud, even though the agreement is valid because of the ratification. The implementation of the provision, which appears as an exceptional regulation in various aspects of Turkish law of obligations, must be limited to certain cases which annulment of the agreement cannot be expected from the defrauded party. In these cases, the defrauded party, requests compensation from the party who violates the pre-contractual liability, for irrepealable damages even though the agreement is ratified. In this context, the requisition of damage is a negative damage as a rule. In this sense, the provision is an exceptional regulation in terms of positive and negative damage.","PeriodicalId":231622,"journal":{"name":"Ankara Barosu Dergisi","volume":"227 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ankara Barosu Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30915/abd.1160610","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 39/2 has adopted the basis that the right to indemnity will not be abolished ipso facto if the contracting party, whose intention defected in consent, has ratified the agreement. Thus, the defrauded party may request compensation for the damage caused by the fraud, even though the agreement is valid because of the ratification. The implementation of the provision, which appears as an exceptional regulation in various aspects of Turkish law of obligations, must be limited to certain cases which annulment of the agreement cannot be expected from the defrauded party. In these cases, the defrauded party, requests compensation from the party who violates the pre-contractual liability, for irrepealable damages even though the agreement is ratified. In this context, the requisition of damage is a negative damage as a rule. In this sense, the provision is an exceptional regulation in terms of positive and negative damage.