T.C. SUPREME
3.law office
Main: 2013/900
Decision: 2013/2605
Date of Decision: 19.02.2013
REQUEST FOR THE RETURN OF ENGAGEMENT GIFTS – THE NEED TO RETURN UNORTHODOX GIFTS IN RETALIATION IF THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE EXACTLY – ALL GOLD JEWELRY AND TRAPPINGS OTHER THAN THE ENGAGEMENT RING ARE AN OUT-OF-THE-BOX GIFT – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: The plaintiff’s engagement gifts have the same, if not the same, cost … TL.together with the legal interest of , he requested and sued the defendant to be decided on its collection. If the engagement is broken, unusual gifts are returned in kind, if they are not available, in retaliation, or their return is requested according to the rules of gratuitous enrichment. According to the established practices of the Supreme Court, all gold, jewelry and trappings other than the engagement ring have been accepted as non-usual gifts. If so, the court, taking into account these principles and principles, required that the defendant be ordered to return the menstrual clock, which is fixed to be worn by the plaintiff’s fiancee, as well as to overturn the judgment as a result of a false assessment.
Lawsuit: In the lawsuit petition, the main plaintiff was asked to return the engagement gifts of 25.169 TL, and in the counterclaim, 500 TL financial and 15.000 TL non-pecuniary compensation was requested to be collected from the defendant side along with interest and expenses. The court partially accepted the original case, but the case was dismissed due to the statute of limitations, and the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff.
After it became clear that the appeal request was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
Decision: In the petition of the deputy plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant, who are his clients, declare that they are engaged, but that this engagement was broken as a result of the defendant’s unfair actions, stating that the engagement gifts are exactly the same, if not, they have a price of 25.169 TL.together with the legal interest of , he requested and sued the defendant to be decided on its collection.
If the defendant is a party, the fee he has filed is 5,000 TL due to the fact that the engagement with the case has been unfairly broken. the plaintiff has asked the defendant to decide on the collection of financial and non-pecuniary damages of 15.000 TL in exchange for the claimant.
If the engagement gifts are not exactly accepted by the court with the partial acceptance of the original case, the price is 12.466 TL.it was decided to collect from the defendant and to dismiss the case due to the statute of limitations in response, and the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s other appeals are not valid.
However: in a concrete case, the court decided to reject the refund request by counting the 2 <fossil> brand watches worn by the plaintiff as an engagement gift to the defendant fiancee as a <usual gift>.
T.M.K.No. 122. according to the article, if the engagement ends for a reason other than marriage, unorthodox gifts that the fiancees have given to each other may be requested back. According to this article, no defects are sought in cases related to the return of non-usual gifts due to the breakdown of the engagement. If the engagement is broken, unusual gifts are returned in kind, if they are not available, in retaliation, or their return is requested according to the rules of gratuitous enrichment.
They are items that are worn out and consumed by intentionally wearing and using conventional (mutad) gifts. As a rule, they are worn out and consumed by wearing, using (dress, shoes, etc. 1) the return of the items cannot be decided.
According to the established practices of the Supreme Court, all gold, jewelry and trappings other than the engagement ring have been accepted as non-usual gifts.
If so, the court, observing these principles and principles, required that the defendant be ordered to return all 2 watches that were fixed to be worn by the plaintiff’s fiancee, as well as to overturn the judgment in writing as a result of a false assessment.
Conclusion: In this respect, the provision in writing is invalid without taking into account the principles described above, and appeals are in place for these reasons, with the acceptance of the provision H.U.M.K.nun 428. in accordance with the article, it was decided unanimously on 19.02.2013 that it would be OVERTURNED and returned to the appellant if the appeal fee received in advance was requested.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.