The Limits to the Surety’s Defenses that Arise from the Principal Debt Relationship

Author:

GÖNÜL KOŞAR Günhan1

Affiliation:

1. HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, HUKUK FAKÜLTESİ

Abstract

Due to the accessoriness feature of the suretyship, the surety can plead against the creditor the defenses of the principal debtor arising from the principal debt relationship that can be pleaded by the principal debtor against the creditor. However, there are limits to these defenses and the surety may not plead all the defenses arising from the principal debt relationship. The defenses that arise from the principal debt relationship but cannot be pleaded by the surety are defenses that the surety cannot plead due to the nature of the surety’s undertaking; defenses that belong to the principal debtor, yet do not arise from the principal debt relationship; and finally, defenses that the surety is not allowed to plead by law. Defenses that the surety cannot plead by law are regulated under Art. 582/2 of Turkish Code of Obligations. According to this provision, the surety may not plead the mistake or incapacity to make a contract or time-barred obligations where he/she is aware of the situation at the time of the conclusion of the suretyship agreement. In situations stipulated under TCO Art. 582/2, the contract may not be categorized as suretyship due to lack of accessoriness. In this article, the scope of application of Art. 582/2 and the qualification of the contract concluded between the guarantor and the creditor shall be evaluated. Another important issue regarding the defenses that arise from the principal debt relationship but cannot be pleaded by the surety is whether the surety may plead the formative rights of the principal debtor that arise from the principal debt relationship against the creditor. The surety cannot invoke a formative right that belongs to principal debtor; however, the surety may refuse to pay under certain circumstances. This issue shall also be examined in this article. Briefly, in this article, first, general information about the suretyship agreement shall be given, then the defenses of the surety arising from the main debt relationship and the rules thereof shall be explained, and finally, the limits of the surety’s ability to apply to the defenses arising from the main debt relationship shall be examined.

Publisher

Turkiye Adalet Akademisi

Reference48 articles.

1. Acar Ö, Türk Borçlar Hukukunda Müteselsil Kefalet Sözleşmesi (On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2015).

2. Akbaş B, ‘Borçlar Kanunu Tasarısı Çerçevesinde Kefilin Alacaklıya Karşı Sahip Olduğu Savunma Olanakları’ (2009) 83 İstanbul Barosu Dergisi 197-217.

3. Aral F ve Ayrancı H, Borçlar Hukuku (Özel Borç İlişkileri) (14. Baskı, Yetkin Yayınevi 2021).

4. Ayan S, Kefalet Sözleşmesi (Adalet Yayınevi 2018).

5. Ayrancı H, ‘Kefalet Sözleşmesinde Asıl Borcun Belirli Olması İlkesi ve Cari Hesaba Kefalet’ (2005) 9 Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 111-132.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3