AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightIn this study, the aspects of fundamental error will be investigated according to COO Law Nr.24/1/4 (TCOO Law Nr. 32/2/3); and the provisions regulating the Code of Obligations, and the Turkish Code of Obligations will be evaluated comparatively.\r\n
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
\r\n One's creation of impact in the external world as a result of the agreement of his will and declaration is accepted as valid judicially. Yet, situations in which will and declaration do not agree can be also encountered. This incongruity can occur either during the declaration of the will or during its emergence. Thoughts and contemplations about a case or situation urging one to make a contract with certain content are called as "motive" (Eren, 2010:342). As a rule, errors of motive are evaluated within COO Law Nr.24/2 (TCOO Law Nr. 32/1), and are not accepted as substantial errors. Still, there exists an exception brought to this situation regulated by COO Law Nr.24/1/4 (TCOO Law Nr. 32/2/3.) Within the frame of aforementioned regulation, the error treated as motive but has an effect on the basis of a contract is called fundamental error. (Tekinay, Akman, Burcuoğlu, Altop, 1993:429). In this study, the aspects of fundamental error will be investigated according to COO Law Nr.24/1/4 (TCOO Law Nr. 32/2/3); and the provisions regulating the Code of Obligations, and the Turkish Code of Obligations will be evaluated comparatively.\r\n
Özet
Kişinin irade ve beyanının uyması sonucu dış dünyada etki yaratması, hukuki açıdan geçerli kabul edilir. Ancak irade ile beyanın birbirlerine uymadığı durumlarla da karşılaşılabilmektedir. Bu uygunsuzluk ya iradenin beyan edilişi ya da oluşması sırasında meydana gelebilmektedir