6361 Sayılı Kanun’un 9/3 Hükmünün Uygulanma(ma)sına İlişkin Yargıtay Kararının Değerlendirilmesi (temel Borç İlişkisinden Doğan Kişisel Def’ilerin Faktoring Şirketine İleri Sürülüp Sürülemeyeceği Sorunu)
Loading...
Date
2017
Authors
Uzun Kazmacı, Özge
Hamamcıoğlu, Esra
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Seçkin Yayıncılık
Open Access Color
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Abstract
6361 sayılı Finansal Kiralama, Faktoring ve Finansman Şirketleri Kanunu’nun 9/3 hükmü ile Kanun öncesi dönemde tartışmalı olan, kambiyo senetlerinde
temel borç ilişkisinden doğan def’ilerin faktoring şirketine karşı ileri sürülüp sürülemeyeceği konusu, TTK hükümleri esas alınarak çözüme kavuşturulmak istenmiştir. Her ne
kadar olması gereken hukuk açısından bu çözüm tarzı, faktoring işleminin özellikleri ve
faktoring’in temeli olan toptan alacak devri dikkate alındığında tartışmaya açık olsa da,
getirilen düzenlemenin lafzı ve gerekçede de ortaya konulan kanun koyucunun amacı
dikkate alındığında, hükmün uygulanması sonucunda söz konusu def’ilerin kural olarak
faktoring şirketine karşı ileri sürülemeyeceği sonucuna varılmaktadır. Hükmün uygulanmasında aksi yönde sonuca varan inceleme konusu karar bu açıdan eleştiriye açıktır.
The issue of whether the defences based on the underlying transaction between drawer and beneficiary may or may not be set up against factoring company which is the holder was controversial is aimed to resolved by Financial Leasing, Factoring and Funding Companies Act No. 6361 art. 9/par.3 in accordance with related articles of Turkish Commercial Code. Even though this solution of the Act is disputable when considering the features of factoring transaction and bulk credit transfer which is a main characteristic of factoring, it can be concluded that defences based on the underlying transaction shall not be set up against the factoring company which is the holder as a conclusion of the appliance of the aforementioned article when the new article’s wording and the aim of the legislator mentioned at the preamble of the Act are taken into consideration. Turkish Cort of Cassation decision that is reivewed in this article, reached the contrary conclusion regarding the application of the article and it is open to criticism from this point of view.
The issue of whether the defences based on the underlying transaction between drawer and beneficiary may or may not be set up against factoring company which is the holder was controversial is aimed to resolved by Financial Leasing, Factoring and Funding Companies Act No. 6361 art. 9/par.3 in accordance with related articles of Turkish Commercial Code. Even though this solution of the Act is disputable when considering the features of factoring transaction and bulk credit transfer which is a main characteristic of factoring, it can be concluded that defences based on the underlying transaction shall not be set up against the factoring company which is the holder as a conclusion of the appliance of the aforementioned article when the new article’s wording and the aim of the legislator mentioned at the preamble of the Act are taken into consideration. Turkish Cort of Cassation decision that is reivewed in this article, reached the contrary conclusion regarding the application of the article and it is open to criticism from this point of view.
Description
Keywords
Faktoring, Toptan Alacak Devri, Kambiyo Senetlerinin Devri, Kişisel Def’iler, Factoring, Bulk Credit Transfer, Transfer of Bill of Exchange, Personal Pleas
Turkish CoHE Thesis Center URL
Fields of Science
Citation
1
WoS Q
Scopus Q
Source
Volume
16
Issue
2-Cilt 2
Start Page
783
End Page
804