Law of Obligations

Obligation relationships, which we encounter in every aspect of our daily lives, constitute one of the most fundamental building blocks of the legal order. Whether it is making a purchase, renting a house, utilizing a service, or causing harm to another, countless situations give rise to legal obligations. As Akdemir Legal, we provide comprehensive legal support with our deep expertise in the Law of Obligations to protect our clients’ rights and resolve disputes arising from these relationships.

Law of Obligations

The Law of Obligations is the branch of private law that regulates the relationships of obligation between persons. The primary legal framework for this field is the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. It regulates the duty of one person to perform a specific act for another and the rights arising from this duty.

Legal obligations primarily arise from three sources:
· Contracts (Sözleşmeler)
· Torts (Haksız Fiiller)
· Unjust Enrichment (Sebepsiz Zenginleşme)

The fundamental principles of this field include freedom of will, pacta sunt servanda (sanctity of contracts), the principle of good faith, and the prohibition of abuse of rights.

The fundamental principles of this field include freedom of will, pacta sunt servanda (sanctity of contracts), the principle of good faith, and the prohibition of abuse of rights.

Obligations Arising from Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment occurs when a person’s assets increase at the expense of another’s without a valid legal justification. For a claim of unjust enrichment to exist, four conditions must be met:

For unjust enrichment to occur, four fundamental conditions must be met simultaneously. First, there must be an enrichment. This enrichment can manifest as an increase in assets or the failure to incur an expense that should have caused a decrease in assets. Second, there must be a corresponding impoverishment. Third, there must be a causal link between the enrichment and the impoverishment. Finally, this enrichment must lack a legal basis.

For example, mistakenly transferring money to someone else’s bank account, making improvements to someone else’s property, or making a payment due to an invalid contract are examples of unjust enrichment. The legislator, in accordance with the principle of equity, does not allow anyone to be unjustly enriched and mandates the return of such enrichment.

An unjust enrichment lawsuit is a secondary (subsidiary) legal remedy that can be pursued when other claim rights have not been exercised. In other words, if there is another legal avenue that can resolve the current situation, that avenue should be pursued first.

Obligation to Restore Assets in Cases of Unjust Enrichment

In cases of unjust enrichment, the obligation of the enriched party to repay the unjustly acquired property varies depending on whether the enrichment actually occurred and whether the enriched party acted in good faith or bad faith.

A person who has been unjustly enriched in good faith, meaning they did not know or should not have known that the enrichment was unjust, is only obligated to return the amount of the enrichment that existed at the time of the lawsuit. If the enrichment has completely ceased at the time of the lawsuit, the obligation to return the enrichment also ends. However, if the enriched party has sold the acquired value to purchase another asset or has paid off their debt, the enrichment is considered to continue.

The person who unjustly enriched themselves, that is, the person who knew or should have known that the enrichment was unlawful, is liable for the entire enrichment. Even if the enrichment has partially or completely disappeared by the date of the lawsuit, they are obliged to return the initial amount of the enrichment. Furthermore, the person who unjustly enriched themselves is also obliged to return any benefits obtained and the corresponding value.

The scope of the restitution obligation is the return of the item in the same condition as received, or, if that is not possible, payment of its value. The party who has benefited may also compensate the party who has suffered financial loss.

Lawsuits Arising from Unjust Enrichment

The primary type of lawsuit that can be filed in disputes arising from unjust enrichment is a restitution (recovery) lawsuit. Through this lawsuit, the impoverished party demands the return of the unjustly obtained gains of the enriched party.

In order to file a restitution lawsuit, the following conditions must be proven: enrichment, impoverishment, a causal link, and the absence of a legal cause. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of these elements.

The lawsuit must be filed within one year from the date the unjust enrichment is discovered, and in any case within ten years from the date the unjust enrichment occurred. These are statutes of limitations, and the right to sue is forfeited if these periods are exceeded.

Unjust enrichment cases fall under the jurisdiction of private law courts and are generally heard in civil courts of first instance. The defendant may argue in their defense that the enrichment was based on a justifiable reason or that the enrichment ceased to exist as of the date the lawsuit was filed.

Common unjust enrichment cases encountered in practice include recovery of erroneous payments, restitution of obligations arising from invalid contracts, compensation for improvements made to property belonging to another, and the division of jointly used assets.

Obligations Arising from Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment occurs when a person’s assets increase at the expense of another’s without a valid legal justification. For a claim of unjust enrichment to exist, four conditions must be met:

In liability based on fault, the party causing the damage must be at fault. For liability arising from a tort to occur, the elements of unlawfulness, damage, fault, and causal link must all be present. For example, in a traffic accident, the liability of the at-fault driver for the damage caused to the other driver falls within this scope.

Cases of strict liability are specifically regulated by law. Examples include the liability of a motor vehicle operator, the liability of an animal owner, the liability of a building owner, and liability for dangerous activities. In these cases, the fault of the person causing the damage is not considered.

The main types of lawsuits arising from torts are as follows:

Monetary damages lawsuit: Aims to compensate for the decrease in the injured party’s assets. Claims are made for concrete damages such as medical expenses, loss of earnings, and vehicle damage.

A claim for moral damages seeks compensation for the pain, distress, and suffering caused by an attack on one’s personal rights.

Declaratory judgment lawsuit: This is filed to determine liability in cases where the full extent of the damage is not yet clear.

Preventive (defense) action: These are lawsuits filed to stop attacks on personal rights that have been or are likely to be carried out.

Claims for damages arising from torts are subject to a statute of limitations of two years from the date the damage and the responsible party are discovered, and in any case, ten years from the date the damage occurred.

Contract Law

Contract Law regulates obligations established by the mutual and consistent declaration of will by parties. Under the principle of Freedom of Contract, parties may freely determine the content of their agreements as long as they do not violate mandatory laws, morality, or public order.

Sözleşme, iki veya daha fazla kişinin karşılıklı ve birbirine uygun irade beyanlarıyla hukuki sonuç doğurmak amacıyla yaptıkları anlaşmadır. Sözleşmelerin geçerli olabilmesi için tarafların irade beyanında bulunması, bu iradelerin birbirine uygun olması ve hukuki sonuç doğurmaya yönelik olması gerekir.

The main types of contracts regulated in the Turkish Code of Obligations include sales, donation, lease, loan, service, work, agency, remittance, brokerage, commission, banking contracts, and insurance contracts. Each type of contract has its own specific conditions and the rights and obligations of the parties.

In accordance with the principle of freedom of contract, parties may enter into contracts as they wish, provided they do not violate mandatory provisions of the law, morality, or public order. Within this framework, mixed contracts or contracts that do not explicitly name specific terms and are not regulated by law may also be formed.

What are lawsuits arising from contracts?

The types of lawsuits that can be filed in contractual disputes vary depending on the type of contract and the nature of the dispute. The most common contractual lawsuits are:

Action for performance: This is filed to compel the debtor to fulfill their obligation under a contract. The creditor may demand the exact performance of the debt or its monetary equivalent.

Compensation lawsuit: This is filed to recover damages incurred due to breach of contract. Both material and non-material damages can be claimed.

Termination lawsuit: This aims to terminate a contract in the circumstances stipulated by law. In particular, termination lawsuits based on just cause can be filed in long-term contracts.

Annulment lawsuit: This is filed to invalidate a contract in cases where there are defects of will (error, fraud, coercion).

Declaratory judgment lawsuits are lawsuits filed to resolve uncertainty regarding the validity, interpretation, or existence of a contract.

Lawsuits arising from sales contracts include claims for price, cancellation and registration of title deeds, eviction lawsuits, and claims for compensation due to defects. In disputes arising from lease agreements, claims for unpaid rent, eviction lawsuits, and declaratory judgments can be filed. Lawsuits concerning employee claims, severance pay, and notice pay arising from employment contracts are also frequently seen.

The limitation periods for claims arising from contracts vary depending on the type of contract. While the general limitation period is ten years, some contracts (such as rent receivables) have specific limitation periods.

How much does a lawyer specializing in debt law charge?

The cost of hiring a lawyer in the field of debt law varies depending on the nature and complexity of the case, the value of the disputed matter, and the lawyer’s experience. Legal fees are examined under two headings: fees determined by contract and fixed fees stipulated by law.

Contractual legal fees are fees freely determined between the lawyer and the client. The parties enter into a written power of attorney agreement specifying the fee, payment method, and terms. This fee is usually agreed upon as a fixed amount or a percentage of the value of the case. At Akdemir Legal, we apply a transparent and fair fee policy, taking into account each client’s financial situation and the specifics of their case.

According to the Minimum Fee Schedule for Lawyers, attorney fees awarded by courts are calculated based on the value and outcome of the case. This fee is intended to cover a portion of the winning party’s legal expenses from the opposing party. The fixed fee determined according to the schedule is calculated at varying rates depending on the type and value of the case.

In debt law cases, attorney fees vary depending on whether the case is a simple debt collection case or a complex contract dispute. For example, the fee for a simple promissory note debt case will differ from the fee for a multi-party contract dispute requiring technical expert examination.

In practice, lawyers usually propose a payment plan consisting of a partial upfront fee and additional fees based on success. In some cases, performance-based fees may also be applied. All financial terms should be clearly and transparently defined during the consultation with the client, and a written agreement should be reached.

Sözleşmelerden kaynaklanan uyuşmazlıklar, haksız fiil tazminatları veya sebepsiz zenginleşme davaları konusunda profesyonel destek almak için bizimle iletişime geçebilirsiniz.