Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005    Tam Metin (PDF)

Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü

Necati Şükrü Bayramoğlu

Hesap verme yükümlülüğü, tüm iş görme sözleşmelerinde söz konusu olan bir yükümlülüktür. Vekalet sözleşmesine ilişkin hükümler kanunda düzenlenmeyen tüm iş görme sözleşmeleri için uygulanma imkanına sahip olduğu için vekilin hesap verme yükümlülüğü ile ilgili düzenleme önem kazanmaktadır. Hesap verme yükümlülüğü, içerisindeki birçok yükümlülüğün bir araya gelmesiyle oluşan bir yükümlülüktür. Bu yükümlülüğün içerisinde her özel vekalet türünde farklı kapsam ve derecede olmak üzere bilgilendirme, muhasebe tutma, fatura düzenleme yükümlülükleri bulunmaktadır. Hesap verme yükümlülüğünün yerine getirilmesi vekalet sözleşmesinden doğan birçok hak ve yükümlülüğü doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak etkilemektedir. Vekalet veren açısından vekaletin icrasının doğru, gereği gibi yerine getirilip getirilmediğinin kontrolü ve talimat verme hakkının etkin bir şekilde kullanılabilmesi ancak hesap verme yükümlülüğünün doğru bir şekilde yerine getirilmesiyle mümkün olur. Vekilin de özellikle ücret, vekaletin icrası sebebiyle yapmış olduğu giderleri, uğramış olduğu zararların giderilmesini, üstlenmiş olduğu borçlardan kurtarılmasını isteyebilmesi hesap verme yükümlülüğünün yerine getirilmesine bağlıdır. Hesap verme, yerine getirildiği zamanla ilgili olarak iki farklı şekilde yerine getirilmektedir. Bunlardan birisi ara hesap verme olarak adlandırılan vekalet ilişkisinin devam ettiği herhangi bir zamanda yerine getirilen hesap verme; diğeri son hesap verme olarak adlandırılan vekalet ilişkisi sona erdiğinde yerine getirilen hesap vermedir. Hesap verme; doğru, ayrıntılı ve anlaşılır bir şekilde yapılmalıdır. Vekil, hesap verme yükümlülüğünü gereği gibi yerine getirmiş olsa da vekalet vereni yapmış olduğu iş veya işlemleri onaylamaya, kendisini ibra etmeye zorlayamaz. Hesap verme yükümlülüğü bir yapma borcu olup, hiç veya gereği gibi yerine getirilmediğinde tazminat sorumluluğu gündeme gelebilir.

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005    Tam Metin (PDF)

Agent’s Accountability to the Principal

Necati Şükrü Bayramoğlu

Accountability is an obligation in all service contracts. Since the provisions of the mandate contract are applicable to all service contracts that are not regulated in the law, the regulation regarding the accountability of the agent gains importance. Accountability is an obligation that is formed by the combination of many obligations in it. Within this obligation, there are obligations to inform, keep accounting, billing in various scope and degrees for each type of special power of mandate. Fulfillment of the obligation of accountability directly or indirectly affects many rights and obligations arising from power of mandate contract. From the point of the principal, the control of whether the execution of the power of mandate is carried out correctly and properly and the effective use of the right to give instructions are only possible if the accountability obligation is fullfilled correctly. The agent’s ability to demand wages, expenses incurred due to the execution of the power of mandate, the compensation for the the damages s/he has incurred, and the quittance of the debts man has undertaken depends on the fulfillment of the accountability obligation. Accounting is carried out in two diffierent ways in relation to the time it is fulfilled. One of these is the accountability, which is called interim accountability, which is performed at any time when the mandate relationship continues; the other is the accountability, which is called final accountability, which is fulfilled when the mandate relationship ends. Accounting; should be done accurately, in detail and clearly.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Accountability takes its source from the obligation to take care of the interests of others, which is one of the important elements of mandate contract. Accountability is a secondary considerations obligation that arises from the law. Although it is a secondary considerations obligation, it has a key role as it directly or indirectly affects many rights and obligations arising from mandate contract. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the principal, the control of whether the execution of mandate is carried out correctly and properly and the effective use of the right to give instructions are only possible if the accountability obligation is fulfilled correctly. The agent’s ability to demand wages, expenses incurred due to the execution of the power of mandate, the elimination of the damages man has incurred, and the quittance of the debts man has undertaken depends on the fulfillment of the accountability obligation. Accountability exists in both material fact and legal transactions. In cases where the agent acts as both a direct and indirect representative, there is an obligation to be accountable.

 The regulation on accountability is imperative. The prior waiver of the principal from the right to hold accountability is null and void. Accountability is an obligation that is formed by the combination of many obligations in it. Within this obligation, there are obligations to inform, keep accounting, billing in various scope and degrees for each type of special power of mandate. A limited information obligation arises regarding accountability. The information here basically consists of givig information about the service or transactions carried out within the scope of the execution of mandate. In this respect, it should be considered seperately from the obligations of clarification and notification, which find their source in the obligation of loyalty and care in article 506 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Clarification and notification obligations are among the obligations that the agent must fulfill spotaneously, without request. If the execution of mandate involves acquiring or spending various asset values, the agent’s obligation to keep accounting becomes important. Accounting can be demonstrated by keeping a systematic record of the values of assets acquired and spent related to execution of mandate and showing a balance. In addition to providing the information about the Money received and given individually, the balance must be displayed in a detailed, understandable and written manner by linking these  information to each other. The obligation to issue an invoice arises in cases where the service or transaction that is the subject of the mandate is done for a fee. The agent declares the service considerations s/he has fulfilled on this invoice, together with the price information.

 Accounting should include a detailed report and descriptive information on the key processes of the service or transaction. A general idea should be given about the results of all the processes and activities carried out. Due to the agent’s obligation to keep records and preserve documents, it will not be sufficient for the agent to add the records and documents s/he has kept to the report. While preparing the account report, these records and documents should be used and they should be clearly linked with the data in the account report. If the scope of the accountability obligation is regulated in the contract between the parties, the agent will fulfill the accountability obligation as agreed. If there is no regulation regarding the ful fillment of the accountability obligation in the contract between the parties, the limit of the accountability obligation is determined by taking into account the principles of good faith.

Accounting is carried out in two diffierent ways in relation to the time it is fulfilled. One of these is the accountability, which is called interim accountability, which is performed at any time when the mandate relationship continues; the other is the accountability, which is called final accountability, which is fulfilled when the mandate relationship ends. Except for the cases agreed by the parties or stipulated by a special law provision, there can be no spontaneous interim or final accountability obligation without the request of the agent. Only in certain cases, a limited scope of accountability may arise from some of the other obligations of the agent. Fulfillment of the obligation of accountability directly or indirectly affects many rights and obligations arising from power of mandate contract.

Accountability is not an obligation that arises only after the end of the service or transaction subject of the mandate. This obligation may arise at any stage of the execution of the mandate. As a rule, it must be fulfilled in writing. Accountability is a duty of performance that can be fulfilled by the agent herself/himself or by a third party under her/his responsibility. Due to this nature, if this obligation is not fulfilled, it turns into a compensation obligation as it can not be fulfilled by force. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Aydoğdu M ve Kahveci N, Türk Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri (Sözleşmeler Hukuku), (3. Baskı, Adalet 2017). google scholar
  • Becker H, İsviçre Borçlar Kanunu Şerhi, İkinci Bölüm, Çeşitli Sözleşme İlişkileri, Madde: 184-551, Çev: Suat DURA, (Yargıtay Yayınları 1993). google scholar
  • Bucher E, ObligationenrechtBesonderer Teil (3., erweiterte Auflage, Schulthess 1988). google scholar
  • Bühler R, Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, OR Kommentar, OFK - Orell Füssli Kommentar (Navigator.ch), (3., überarbeitete Auflage, Orell Füssli Verlag 2016). google scholar
  • Cordey CG ve Giger G, CHK - Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, Vertragverhaltnisse Teil 2: Arbeitsvertrag, Werkvertrag, Auftrag, GoA, Bürgschaft, Art. 319-529 OR, (3. Auflage, Schulthess 2016). google scholar
  • Derendınger P, Die Nicht- und die nichtrichtige Erfüllung des einfachen Auftrages, (2. nachgeführte Auflage, Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatverlag, 1990). google scholar
  • EREN F: Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, (2. Baskı, Yetkin 2015). google scholar
  • Fellmann W, Berner Kommentar, Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch, Das Obligationenrecht, Die einzelnen Vertragsverhaltnisse, Der einfache Auftrag, Art. 394-406 OR, (Stampfli 1992). google scholar
  • Gautschı G, Berner Kommentar, Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch, BandIV, Das Obligationenrecht, 2. Abteilung, Die einzelnen Vertragverhaltnisse, 4. Teilband, Der einfache Auftrag, Art. 394-406 OR, (3., neu bearbeitete Auflage, Verlag Stampfli & Cie 1971). google scholar
  • Graham Siegenthaler, B, Haftpflichtkommentar, Kommentar zu den schweizerischen Haftpflichtbestimmungen, Hrsg: Willi Fischer, Thierry Luterbacher, (Dike 2016). google scholar
  • Gümüş MA Türk-İsviçre Borçlar Hukukunda Vekilin Özen Borcu, (Beta 2001). (Kısaltma: Özen) google scholar
  • Gümüş MA, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, C. II, (3. Bası, Vedat 2014). (Kısaltma: Borçlar) google scholar
  • Hafner S, Die Rechenschaftspflicht des Beauftragten - Ein Beitrag zum Informationenrecht im Auftragsvertrag, Dissertation, (Weissensee 2007). google scholar
  • Hofstetter J, Der Auftrag und die Geschaftsführung ohne Auftrag, Schweizerisches Privatrecht, Siebenter Band, Sechster Teilband, Obligationenrecht - Besondere Vertragsverhaltnisse, Herausgegeben von Wolfgang WIEGAND, (Helbing & Lichtenhahn 2000). google scholar
  • Müller-Chen M, Girsberger D ve Furrer A: Obligationenrecht-Besonderer Teil, (Schulthess 2011) google scholar
  • Oğuzman MK ve Öz MT, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, C. I, (6098 sayılı Yeni Türk Borçlar Kanunu’na Göre Güncellenip, Genişletilmiş 10. Bası, Vedat 2012). google scholar
  • Oser H ve Schönenberger W, Das Obligationenrecht, 2. Teil (Halbband): Art. 184-418, (Zweite umgearbeitete Auflage, Schulthess & Co. 1936). google scholar
  • Sarı S, Vekalet Sözleşmesinin Tek Taraflı Olarak Sona Erdirilmesi, (Beşir 2004). google scholar
  • Tandoğan H, Borçlar Hukuku, Özel Borç İlişkileri, C. II, (5. Bası, Vedat 2010). google scholar
  • Velidedeoğlu HV ve Özdemir R, Türk Borçlar Kanunu Şerhi (Genel-Özel), (Yargıtay Yayınları 1987). google scholar
  • Weber RH, Basler Kommentar, Obligationenrect I, Art. 1-529 OR, Herausgeber: Heinrich Honsell/ Nedim Peter Vogt/ Wolfgang Wiegand, (5. Auflage, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2011). google scholar
  • Yavuz C, Türk-İsviçre ve Fransız Medeni Hukuklarında Dolaylı Temsil, Doktora Tezi, (İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları 1983). (Kısaltma: Temsil) google scholar
  • Yavuz C, Türk Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, (Yenilenmiş 10. Bası, Beta 2014). (Kısaltma: Borçlar) google scholar
  • Zevkliler A ve Gökyayla KE, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri, (18. Bası, Turhan 2018). google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Bayramoğlu, N.Ş. (2024). Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 82(1), 129-162. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005


AMA

Bayramoğlu N Ş. Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası. 2024;82(1):129-162. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005


ABNT

Bayramoğlu, N.Ş. Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, [Publisher Location], v. 82, n. 1, p. 129-162, 2024.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Bayramoğlu, Necati Şükrü,. 2024. “Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 82, no. 1: 129-162. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005


Chicago: Humanities Style

Bayramoğlu, Necati Şükrü,. Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 82, no. 1 (Mar. 2025): 129-162. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005


Harvard: Australian Style

Bayramoğlu, NŞ 2024, 'Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü', İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 129-162, viewed 10 Mar. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Bayramoğlu, N.Ş. (2024) ‘Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü’, İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 82(1), pp. 129-162. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005 (10 Mar. 2025).


MLA

Bayramoğlu, Necati Şükrü,. Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 82, no. 1, 2024, pp. 129-162. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005


Vancouver

Bayramoğlu NŞ. Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası [Internet]. 10 Mar. 2025 [cited 10 Mar. 2025];82(1):129-162. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005


ISNAD

Bayramoğlu, NecatiŞükrü. Vekili̇n Vekalet Verene Karşı Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü”. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 82/1 (Mar. 2025): 129-162. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.1.005



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim09.11.2023
Kabul19.04.2024
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma07.06.2024

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.