Difference In The Model Of The Purchased Vehicle: Supreme Court Decision Regarding The Provision Of A 2010 Model Despite The Purchase Of A 2011 Model
19th Legal Department 2014/6234 E. , 2015/3062 K.
“Case Law Text”
COURT: Commercial Court
Following the trial of the claim for payment between the parties, the judgment partially accepting and partially rejecting the claim for the reasons stated in the decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney with a request for a hearing, and summonses were sent to the parties concerned. On the appointed day, the hearing commenced with the arrival of the plaintiff’s attorney, Av…., and the defendant’s attorney, Av…. After hearing the oral statements of the attorneys present and determining that the appeal petition was filed within the time limit, the file was examined, and the necessary discussions and deliberations were made.
-D E C I S I O N
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the parties had agreed on the sale of the 2011 model vehicle, whose specifications were indicated in the proforma invoice dated 02.01.2012 issued by the defendant, to the plaintiff for a price of 79,500.00 TL, and that the client had paid a total of 79, 500.00 TL on January 4, 2012, and January 12, 2012, the defendant failed to deliver the vehicle, refused to even accept the warning letter sent, and that the client suffered damages due to the failure to deliver the vehicle. The client incurred expenses of 2,950. 00 TL in expenses during this period. The plaintiff requested and filed a lawsuit for the termination of the contract for just cause, reserving the right to claim additional damages, and for the collection of 79,500.00 TL paid as the vehicle price and 2,950.00 TL in vehicle rental expenses, totaling 82,450.00 TL, from the defendant.
The defendant’s attorney stated that the vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff under the sales contract, that the defendant declared the vehicle’s special consumption tax and paid it on behalf of the plaintiff, that ownership was transferred to the plaintiff, and that although the plaintiff applied for registration of the vehicle, the Traffic Registration Branch Directorate stated that the vehicle could be registered as a 2010 model due to changes in legislation, and that the outcome of correspondence with the relevant institutions regarding its registration as a 2011 model had to be awaited, thereby creating a dispute. The defendant’s attorney stated that this situation was completely beyond the control of the client and requested that the case be dismissed.
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court found that although the defendant had committed to the sale and delivery of a 2011 model vehicle, it wanted to deliver a 2010 model vehicle to the plaintiff, thus failing to fulfill its delivery obligation in accordance with the contract. and that the plaintiff’s request for termination of the contract was justified.
Considering the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the compelling reasons, and finding no inaccuracy in the assessment of the evidence, all appeals of the defendant’s attorney, which are deemed unfounded, are rejected, and the ruling, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, is APPROVED. The attorney’s fee of 1,100.00 TL, determined in favor of the plaintiff, who was present at the Court of Appeals hearing, The court fees listed below shall be collected from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff. The decision was made unanimously on 05.03.2015.