CISG Uyarınca Alıcı ve Satıcının Sorumluluktan Kurtulması ve Türk Borçlar Hukuku ile Karşılaştırılması
Cansu DönmezBu çalışmada, Milletlerarası Mal Satımına İlişkin Birleşmiş Milletler Antlaşması (CISG) uyarınca alıcı ve satıcının sorumluluktan kurtulması rejimi, 6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu hükümleri ile karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Milletlerarası ticareti geliştirmek ve özel hukuku yeknesaklaştırmak amacıyla yürürlüğe giren bu Antlaşma, yabancılık unsuru taşıyan milletlerarası taşınır mal satışları bakımından iç hukukumuzun bir parçası haline gelmiştir. Her ne kadar Antlaşma ile yeknesak bir satım hukuku oluşturulmaya çalışılmış olsa da metin, Türk Borçlar Kanunundan farklı bir ifa engelleri ve sorumluluk sistematiği benimsemiştir. Buradan hareketle, CISG, Türk-İsviçre Borçlar Hukuku öğretisinden farklı, her türlü borca aykırılık halini içine alan genel bir sözleşmeye aykırılık çatısı oluşturmuştur. Buna ek olarak, CISG, ifa engelleri sisteminde ise, kusura dayanmayan ve kusurdan bağımsız bir sorumluluk rejiminin esas alınmış olduğu görülmektedir. Adeta bir garanti sorumluluğunu andıran bu rejimin katlanılmaz durumların önüne geçilmesi amacıyla belli ölçüde sınırlandırılması gereksinimi, çalışmamızın da esas konusunu oluşturan, Antlaşmanın 79 ve 80. maddelerinde kendini göstermektedir. Madde 79 taraflar açısından temel bir sorumluluktan kurtulma rejimi yaratmaktadır. Alıcı ve satıcı bakımından ortak etkileri olan CISG m. 79, taraflardan birinin yükümlülüklerini ifa etmemesinin denetimi dışında kalan, öngörülmez ve kaçınılmaz bir engelden kaynaklandığının ispat edilmesi halinde tazminat sorumluluğunun ortadan kalkacağını düzenlemektedir. Madde 79’un önem arz ettiği an ise edim hasarının satıcıda olduğu dönemdir. İlgili hüküm çerçevesinde tartışmalı olan ve çalışmamızda da üzerinde durulacak olan bir diğer husus ise satıcının hangi tür borca aykırılık hallerinde sorumluluktan kurtulabileceğinin hükümde açıkça ifade edilmemiş olmasıdır. Sözleşmenin hiç ifa edilmemesi veya ayıplı ifa arasındaki farklar bu kapsamda incelenecektir. Son olarak belirtmek gerekir ki, madde 79, ancak tarafların kendi aralarında sözleşmesel risk dağılımına ilişkin bir düzeleme yapmamaları halinde uygulanabilecektir. CISG m. 80’de ise borçlunun yükümlülüklerini ifa etmemesinin alacaklının bir davranışından kaynaklanması halinde, alacaklı tarafından borçlunun sözleşmeye aykırı davrandığını ileri süremeyeceği hususu düzenlenmiştir. Madde 79’dan farklı olarak, Madde 80 kapsamında borçlu yalnızca tazminat sorumluluğundan değil, bütün sorumluluklarından kurtulacaktır.
The Buyer’s and Seller’s Exclusion from Liability Under the CISG and Its Comparision with the Turkish Law of Obligations
Cansu DönmezThis article comparatively examines the buyer’s and seller’s exemption from liability under the 6098 numbered Turkish Code of Obligations and The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). The Agreement has become a part of our legal system regarding the international sales of movable property containing an element of foreignness. It may be observed that the text of the Agreement has adopted a different approach towards the breach of contract and liability systematic. Therefore, CISG has created a general frame as to what constitutes a breach of contract. Additionally, CISG has adopted a liability system that is detached from the concept of negligence. In other words, it could be said that the Agreement almost presents a regime that is similar to a guaranteed liability. For this regard, the need to limit this liability regime in order to prevent unbearable situations, has led to the adoption of Articles 79 and 80. Article 79, which has similar effects for both seller and buyer, puts forward that both parties are not liable for a failure to perform any of their obligations if they prove that the failure was due to an impediment beyond their control and that they could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it, or its consequences. Article 79 could only be invoked during the period where the damage is on the seller. Another important yet controversial aspect which is also important in terms of our study is that Article 79 does not explicitly state the type of the breach that would lead to an exemption from the seller’s liability. Therefore, the difference between the non-performance and the defective performance will be analyzed within this framework. Lastly, Article 79 could only be applicable in the event where the parties did not agree on a specific contractual risk allocation. Article 80 puts forward that a party may not rely on another party’s failure to perform, to the extent that such failure was caused by the first party’s act or omission. Unlike Article 79, according to Article 80, the obligor will be exempt from all of his liabilities.
Every state has different rules and regulations with regard to their commercial law and law of obligations, and such differences create a major obstacle on the development of international trade. In this regard, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) which came into force on January 1, 1998 was accepted by 42 states, for the prevention of such problems and for the development of international trade. The Agreement has come into force in our country on August 1, 2011 and has become a part of our domestic sales law regarding the international sale of goods. The liability and the non-performance system established under the Agreement contains major differences compared to the ones established under Turkish law. Contrary to the 6098 numbered Turkish Code of Obligations, stating different nonperformance types under respective articles, the Agreement adopted a system that unifies all non-performance types under a single roof and shaped parties’ liabilities accordingly. Additionally, contrary to the Turkish regulation, the liability system established under the Agreement was accepted as being based on a warranty liability and the scope of such liability has been limited by the foreseeability principle established under Art 74 with regard to damages and by the exemption from liability regime established under Arts 79 and 80. CISG has developed a general nonperformance system that contains all types of breach of obligations and unified them under a single breach of contract regime. It has been accepted that the liability regime established under the Agreement is based on a warranty liability principle. Therefore, in case of a breach of an obligation arising from the contract terms or the Agreement, it shall be subject to the legal remedies established under the agreement with no further need to establish the negligence of the defaulting party. However, this liability has to be limited to a certain extent in order to prevent unbearable situations. Article 79 establishes a basic exemption from liability regime for the parties. For this regard, a party shall not be liable for damages regarding the failure of the nonperformance of his obligations if he proves that such failure is due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences. In the event where all the conditions laid under Article 79 have been met, both seller and buyer shall be exempt from liability with regard to damages arising out of non-performance. However, such exemption has only been established with regard to damages and it does not prevent buyer from using his Art 46 rights against buyer. Additionally, Art. 79 shall only be applicable where parties did not make any contractual liability distribution amongst themselves. If the seller fails to perform his obligations with regard to an impediment that has been stated under Art 79, he shall be exempt from liability. Although Art 79 limits the strict liability regime underlying the CISG, such exemption from liability depends on the realization of strict conditions and therefore, it caused such non-liability to be applicable in very rare circumstances. According to Art 79/2, if the party’s failure is due to the failure by a third person whom he has engaged to perform the whole or a part of the contract, that party is exempt from liability only if such non-performance is caused by an independent third party who shall not be under the supervision of the party. However, it also has to be mentioned that, in case where the third party has the ability to overcome the impediment, the party shall not be able to exempt from liability. In addition, while Art 79/3 states that the exemption from liability provided by this article shall only be effective for the period during which the impediment exits, Art 79/4 states that, the party who fails to perform must give notice to the other party of the impediment and its effect on his ability to perform. The failing party shall only be exempt from damages; however, the buyer can still invoke his rights under Art 46 such as specific performance, delivery of substitute goods and a request for substitute goods. Article 79/5, which states that this article shall not prevent either party from exercising any right other than to claim damages under this Convention, has been subject to dispute regarding parties’ right to request specific performance. The possibility of performing such request should be determined according to Articles 46 and 62, instead of Art 79. While Art 79 establishes parties’ exemption from liability to pay damages; Art 80 indicates that a party may not rely on a failure of the other party to perform, to the extent that such failure was caused by the first party’s act or omission. For this regard, the other party shall not be able to revoke his rights such as specific performance, repairment or reduction. Considered from this aspect, it could be said that, the scope of the exemption from liability regime established under Art 80 is broader than the regime established under Art 79.
