Open Invoice – Closed Invoice
T.C.
JUDICIARY
11TH CIVIL COURT
E. 1997/5184
K. 1997/5705
T. 15.9.1997
– OPEN – CLOSED INVOICE – Determination of whether the price has been paid or not
– BURDEN OF PROOF – Falling on the Defendant in the Admission of Non-Payment of the Open Invoice
– THE OBLIGATION TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL INVOICE AS EVIDENCE
SUMMARY : The plaintiff seller claimed that the defendant buyer did not pay the price of the bread and the defendant defended that the price was paid with invoices. The parties have submitted their evidence and it is understood that the documents examined are copies. Since the parties have relied on these evidences, the originals of the evidences should be brought and it should be determined whether the invoices are closed or not. If closed invoices are submitted, it must be accepted that these invoices were paid by the defendant buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, in this case, it is obligatory to accept that the burden of proof falls on the defendant by accepting that the sales price has not been paid.
LAWSUIT : The appeal of the judgment dated 6.3.1997 and numbered 255-26 given by (Havsa Civil Court of First Instance) for the case between the parties was understood by the plaintiff’s attorney; after the papers in the file were read, the matter was discussed and considered:
DECISION : The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the bread sold and delivered to the defendant company was not paid and demanded the collection of the receivable of 174.220.000 TL from the defendant with 54% interest and 40% denial compensation since the proceeding was objected.
The defendant’s attorney argued that the invoices on which the plaintiff relied were closed invoices and that the invoices were paid upon submission and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that, according to the evidence collected and the scope of the file, the plaintiff did not present evidence other than invoices and delivery notes, and the lawsuit could not be proven.
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s counsel.
The plaintiff seller claimed that the defendant buyer did not pay the price of the bread and the defendant defended that the price was paid with invoices. If the sale is in cash, it is clear that the sale price will be made upon delivery of the goods, and in this case, the claim that the price has not been paid must be proved by the plaintiff. If it has been agreed that the goods subject to the sale will be delivered and the price will be paid later, then the buyer must also prove that the sale price has been paid.
The parties have submitted their evidence and it is understood that the documents examined are copies. Since the parties have relied on these evidences, the originals of the evidences should be brought and it should be determined whether the invoices are open or closed. If closed invoices are submitted, it must be accepted that these invoices were paid by the defendant buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, in this case, it is obligatory to accept that the burden of proof falls on the defendant by accepting that the sales price has not been paid.
Within the framework of these principles explained, it is necessary to request the originals of the evidence, to determine whether the invoices are open or closed, and if the parties rely on the books, these books should also be submitted and examined by an expert expert and a decision should be made within the framework of the result, but the rejection of the case with incomplete examination was not deemed correct and the decision of the local court should be reversed.
CONCLUSION : For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 15.9.1997 to accept the appeals of the plaintiff and to return the prepaid appeal fee to the appellant upon request.