There is no provision in either Turkish Commercial Code No: 6102 or (former) Turkish Commercial Code No: 6762 regarding the legal outcome of the stipulation of a «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clause on a bill of exchange by the drawer. Quite a large part of the Turkish doctrine is of the opinion that a «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clause which is written on a bill of exchange by the drawer is a recta clause (not to order clause). According to such opinion, a bill of exchange which is provided by the drawer with a «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clause shall be a registered security. Consistent ruling of the Court of Cassation is in the same direction as this approach. But contrary to the prevailing opinion regarding the doctrine and the consistent Court of Cassation rulings which are parallel to that, according to our opinion, «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clauses written on a bill of exchange are not recta (not to order) clauses. First of all, it is semantically not possible to accept these clauses as recta clauses. It is true that there is no specific and obligatory form for recta clause. But a clause must be clear and precise when showing that the bill of exchange is “not to order” or is a “registered security” in order to be accepted as a recta clause. However, «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clauses lack this clarity and precision. Second of all, essentially the drawer does not write these clauses on the paper with the intent of drawing a registered bill of exchange. Therefore, a bill of exchange containing one of these clauses is not a registered bill of exchange, and it is still drawn to order. The aim of the drawer who writes «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» on a bill of exchange is to show that he agreed with the beneficiary about not transferring the bill to third parties and to prevent its circulation. In this regard, the root relationship behind the stipulation of «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clauses on a bill of exchange must be scrutinized. By providing the bill of exchange with the mentioned clauses, the drawer wishes to prevent its circulation, showing the third parties the agreement between him and beneficiary which provides that the bill should not be transferred (circulated) and at the same time he wants to ease the return of the bill to himself if the beneficiary rejects returning it when the time comes. «No endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clauses do not lead to the invalidation of the bill of exchange. Despite being fundamentally written on the bill of exchange with the purpose of preventing circulation, they do not eliminate the circulation potential. But these clauses bear legal consequences for the root relationship between drawer and beneficiary. By accepting the bill of exchange with «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clauses on it, the beneficiary undertakes that he will not put the bill of exchange into circulation (not transfer it to third parties). If the beneficiary does not abide this undertaking by transferring the bill of exchange to third parties and the drawer suffers a loss consequently, the drawer can claim damages from beneficiary. However, «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clauses which are written on the bill of exchange by the drawer, are not binding for third parties. These clauses do not grant the drawer the opportunity to plead the defences that he has against the beneficiary and against the third parties who acquire the bill of exchange subsequently. Third parties cannot be deemed to be in bad faith when acquiring the bill of exchange just because of having acquired it with «no endorsement» or «endorsement forbidden» clauses. It is also not possible to accept that third parties act intentionally to the detriment of the drawer (obligor) when acquiring the bill just for this reason.