19.Law Office 2014/6234 E., 2015/3062 K .
“legal text”
COURT : Commercial Court
At the end of the trial of the receivable case between the parties, a notification was sent to the concerned parties upon the summons to the hearing of the provision made by the defendant’s attorney for the partial acceptance or rejection of the case for the reasons written in the Decrees. On a certain day, after the oral statements of the lawyers present at the hearing were listened to and it was understood that the appeal was pending, the file was reviewed and discussed and decisions were made on the issues deemed necessary.
-THE DECISION
Plaintiff’s attorney, on the date when the parties agreed to sell the features of the 2011 model vehicle specified by the Defendant in the proforma invoice dated 02.01.2012 to the plaintiff for a price of 79.500,00, and Decently collected from the defendant for a total of 79.500,00 TL between 04.01.2012-12.01.2012, having received confirmation that the defendant did not deliver his vehicle, although he did not deliver it, in this process ( between 15.01.2012-10.02.2012) that he spent 2.950,00 TL by renting zero vehicles, that he considered it justified to Decertify the contract on condition of reserving his rights regarding the excess, A total of 82,450.00 TL, including the rental price of a car with a price of 79,500.00 TL and the car rental price of 2,950.00 TL. he asked the defendant for a decision to be made for the collection of the amount of the receivable and filed a lawsuit.
Paying paid vehicle excise duty on behalf of the plaintiff, the ownership was transferred to the plaintiff, the plaintiff applied for registration of the vehicle by the branch office, justifying the legislation, the result of this dispute will be communicated to him in correspondence with the relevant authorities, stating that the vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant’s attorney with a sales contract, stating that this is a situation that has developed completely outside of his client, stating that the vehicle can be registered as a 2011 model for registration of the vehicle as a 2010 model, requested the dismissal of the case, stating that this situation is a situation that has developed completely outside of his client.
According to the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, despite the defendant’s commitment to sell and deliver the 2011 model vehicle, the plaintiff wanted to take delivery of the 2010 model vehicle, so the delivery debt was not fulfilled according to the contract, the plaintiff’s request for termination of the contract was justified on the grounds of partial acceptance of the case, the cost of the vehicle was 79.500,00 TL, and requested a decision to collect from the defendant and filed a lawsuit.
According to the articles contained in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons of necessity, there is no error in the evaluation of the evidence, the APPROVAL of the decision found in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting all the appeals of the defendant’s attorney that were not examined on the spot, the attorney present at the Supreme Court hearing was appreciated in favor of the plaintiff 1.100,00,-TL. it was decided unanimously on 05.03.2015 that the trial proxy fee should be paid to the plaintiff by taking from the defendant and the approval fee written below should be taken from the appellant.