Borcun İfasının, Sözleşmenin Kurulmasından Sonraki Bir Olgunun Gerçekleşmesinden İtibaren Belirli Bir Sürenin Geçmesiyle Muaccel Olacağının Kararlaştırıldığı Hallerde Borçlunun Temerrüde Düşmesi İçin İhtar Şart Mıdır? (Vadenin Sonradan Belirli Hale Gelebilirliği Üzerine)
Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nun (TBK) 117.maddesinin ikinci fıkrasına göre, borcun ifa edileceği gün taraflarca birlikte belirlenmişse, bugünün geçmesiyle borçlu temerrüde düşmüş olur. Bununla birlikte, bazen, borcun, gelecekte gerçekleşmesi beklenen bir olgunun gerçekleşmesinden itibaren belirli bir sürenin geçmesi üzerine muaccel olacağı kararlaştırılmış olabilir. Örneğin malın tesliminden itibaren on gün içinde ödeme yapılacağının kararlaştırılması. Öğretide savunulan klasik görüşe göre, belirli vadeden söz edebilmek için, ifa zamanının sözleşmenin kurulduğu anda kesin olarak belirli bir tarih veya takvim günü olarak hesaplanabilir bir şekilde kararlaştırılmış olması gerekir. Aksi halde borçlunun temerrüde düşmesi için alacaklının borçluya yönelik bir temerrüt ihtarında bulunması gerekir. Buna karşılık öğretide savunulan diğer bir görüşe göre, ifa zamanının sözleşme kurulduktan sonra ve ifa zamanı gelmeden önceki bir tarihte de belirli veya kesin olarak hesaplanabilir hale geldiği hallerde, vade sonradan belirli hale gelmektedir ve bu sebepledir ki temerrüt ihtarı gerekmez. Yargıtay’ın ise farklı somut olaylara ilişkin ilişkin kararları çelişkili olmakla birlikte, içtihatlarının çoğunluğunun, klasik görüş doğrultusunda olduğu gözlemlenmektedir. Öte yandan, sözleşmede kararlaştırılan gelecekte gerçekleşmesi beklenen olgunun gerçekleşmemiş olması halinde, ifa süresinin nasıl hesaplanması gerekeceği ve bu hallerde temerrüt ihtarına gerek olup olmadığı, değerlendirilmesi gereken diğer bir hukuki problemdir. Bu çalışmada, öğretideki görüşler ve Yargıtay uygulaması çerçevesinde konu ele alınmakta ve konuya ilişkin kanaatlerimiz ifade edilmektedir.
Is It Necessary to Give Notice to the Debtor for Default, In Cases Where Parties Agreed that the Performance of the Obligation Shall Be Due by the End of a Certain Period after the Realization of an Event? (About Becoming Definite of Due Date after the Conclusion of the Contract)
According to the second paragraph of Article 117/II of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), where a date for performance of the obligation has been set by an agreement, the obligor is automatically in default as of this date. However, the parties sometimes may have agreed that the obligation will be due upon a definite period of time after occurrence of an event that is expected in the future. According to the classical view in doctrine, in order to be able to accept a definite maturity (tempus certum), in the contract, the due date must be determined as a fixed date or a date which is precisely foreseeable as a calendar day at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Otherwise, in order for the debtor to fall into default, the creditor must give notice for performance. However, according to the second view in the doctrine, if the due date becomes definite or definable at a date after the conclusion of the contract and before the time of performance, then the maturity of the debt also becomes definite and therefore no notice for performance is required. This is the case, for example, if the contract states, when payment is to be made within ten days of the delivery of the goods. The Turkish Court of Cassation gives contradictory decisions, but often its decisions are grounded in the classical view. On the other hand, if the expected future event in the contract is not realized, it is necessary to evaluate how the due date will be calculated and whether a notice for performance is required.
According to the second paragraph of Article 117 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), where a date for performance of the obligation has been set by an agreement, the obligor is automatically in default as of this date. Accordingly, if the performance day of the contract is determined as a calendar day (eg 1 June 2019, the first day of the Feast of Sacrifice), there is a definite maturity (tempus certum). At this agreed date in the contract, the obligation falls due and upon the expiry of this date, the debtor will be in default without the need of a default notice. However, in some cases, parties may agree that the obligation shall be due by the lapse of a certain time which will run after the occurrence of a future event. This is the case, for example, when the contract states that the payment is to be made within ten days after the delivery of the goods. If the due date is attributed to an event that is expected to occur in the future, it is certain that the obligation of the debtor shall take effect at the moment of the conclusion of the contract. However, this obligation is to be fulfilled upon the occurrence of a future event. In these cases, it is controversial whether or not it is necessary to give notice for performance to the debtor in order to put him in default. According to the classical view in doctrine, in order to be able to accept a definite maturity (tempus certum), in the contract, the due date must be determined as a fixed date or a date which is precisely foreseeable as a calendar day at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Otherwise, in order for the debtor to fall into default, the creditor must give notice for performance. We share, however, the second view in the doctrine which suggests that, in order to accept definite maturity, the due date does not necessarily have to be a fixed date or a date which is precisely foreseeable at the moment of the conclusion of the contract. If the due date becomes definite or definable at a date after the conclusion of the contract and before the time of performance, then the maturity of the debt also becomes definite and therefore no notice for performance is required. However, in the case that the expected event occurs but the debtor is not aware thereof, it is not accepted that debtor will automatically fall into default upon occurrence of the event. If the parties decide on such a time of performance with the idea that the obligation can be fulfilled on the same day that the event occurs or shortly thereafter, the parties’ wills in this matter should be valued. It is clear, in our opinion, that in this case the parties did not act with the will to make a transaction without any fixed term or a transaction with indefinite maturity (eg the debt will be executed at harvest time); on the contrary, they have agreed on a determinable time for performance. Therefore, it is necessary to accept that, in principle, the default will occur on the date of the event as long as the debtor knows that the event has occurred and the obligation can be fulfilled even in such a short time. The position of the Turkish Court of Cassation on this topic is rather inconsistent. However, it could be said that the majority of its decisions are grounded in the classical view. On the other hand, if the expected event does not occur, the period agreed in the contract shall never begin and the duration of the contract is incalculable. For this reason, it is difficult in these cases to assume that the maturity is definite. In the event that the nonoccurrence of the expected event is not attributable to the debtor, in our opinion, as a rule, the expected event should be deemed to have occurred at the time that it should have occurred according to the good faith principle. Therefore, it should be concluded that there is no need for a notice of default according to the good faith principle. In the case that the creditor prevents the occurrence of the expected event, or the event does not occur for a reason attributable to the creditor, the debtor may avoid the performance of the obligation in cases where he is entitled to avoid (for example if there is an order of performance between the debtor and creditor). In such cases, the fact that the creditor plays a role in the failure of occurrence of the event, may prevent the maturity of the debt. If the nonoccurrence of the event is not attributable to the parties, the due date shall be determined taking into account the reasonable time in which the event should have occurred according to the good faith principle. In such cases, the specific time period in which the event should occur is not a definite or precisely foreseeable time, therefore there is no definite maturity (tempus certum). In order for the debtor go into default, this time, as a rule, a notice shall be required. On the other hand, if the event is to occur in the dominance area of the debtor, it may not be possible for the creditor to find out whether the event has occurred unless the debtor gives this information. In this case, in order to be able to put the debtor into default, according to the good faith principle, a default notice should be required. However, in such cases, if the creditor sends the default notice to the debtor before the debt becomes mature because the creditor has no precise knowledge of the time of maturity, this also must be regarded as a valid notice according to the good faith principle.
