T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Date of Decision: 29.02.2016
THE COMPENSATION CASE – THE WORK SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS IN EXCHANGE FOR A SHARE OF THE LAND REQUIRES HIGH-LEVEL TECHNOLOGY – REFERS TO NARROW-DEC WORK CONTRACTS SUCH AS MAKING CABINETS AND REPAIRING VEHICLES
ABSTRACT: The case concerns a claim for compensation due to violation of the construction contract for floor provision. The plot of the work of construction contracts in return for a share of the top-level requires technology under contract, including the promise of real property sales and construction contracts, are taken into account when the legislator and the law for the purpose of consumption in 6502 use salt to work to repair the vehicle narrowly focused in their contracts, like the kitchen cabinet is what the plot requires the acceptance that is not within the scope of contracts for construction.
(6502 Pp. K. m. 3, 73) (818 Pp. K. m. 155) (6100 p. K. m. 2, 21, 22)
Case: Bakırkö Dec 7 in the case between the parties. Law of First Instance and Bakırköy 3. All the documents in the file sent to determine the place of jurisdiction due to the fact that the Consumer Courts have issued a decision on non-duty separately have been examined and considered as necessary:
The lawsuit relates to a claim for compensation for violation of the contract for the construction of floor provision.
Bakırköy 7. The Court of First Instance decided to dismiss the dispute on the grounds that the dispute falls within the scope of Law No. 6502 and that the consumer court is in charge.
Bakırköy 3. On the other hand, the Consumer Court issued a decisiveness decision on the grounds that the plaintiff is the owner of the land plot, the defendant is the contractor, and there is no consumer relationship within the meaning of Law No. 6502.
article 3/1-(l) of Law No. 6502, which entered into force on Dec. 05/28/2014, covers the consumer transaction “work contracts established between natural or legal persons and consumers”. 73/1 of the Law. in the article, it is determined that consumer courts are responsible for cases arising from consumer transactions.
3 of Law No. 6502. on the grounds of the article, no explanation has been given to the inclusion of work contracts within the scope of the law. Dec, when the systematics of the law is taken into consideration, it is understood that the november of the work contracts mentioned in the law are the work contracts concluded between a natural and legal person and a consumer for the purpose of using and consuming them for commercial and non-professional purposes, only for their personal needs. Construction contracts for the provision of land shares are stipulated in Art. 155 of BK No. 818, et dec. it is a peculiar type of contracts of works regulated by its articles. One side of these contracts is the owner of the land plot dec the other side is the contractor. It dec understood that in such contracts the owner of the land plot does not comply with the definition of consumer in article 3/1-k in the Consumer Code.
The purpose dec dec the land owner in the construction contracts for the provision of land share is not to acquire housing for use, but to evaluate the land plot. Therefore, it should not be overlooked that the motive of the land owner when signing the construction contract in exchange for the land share is different from the motive of the consumer defined in Law No. 6502. dec. It should be noted that the motive of the land owner is different from the motive of the consumer. dec. The plot of the work of construction contracts in return for a share of the top-level requires technology under contract, including the promise of real property sales and construction contracts, are taken into account when the legislator and the law for the purpose of consumption in 6502 use salt to work to repair the vehicle narrowly focused in their contracts, like the kitchen cabinet is what the plot requires the acceptance that is not within the scope of contracts for construction.
In this case, since the dispute in the case at hand does not remain within the scope of Law No. 6502, it is important that the case is resolved in accordance with Article 2 of the HMK. according to the general provisions in accordance with Article 7 of Bakırköy. It must be considered and concluded in the Court of First Instance.
Conclusion: For the reasons described above, HMK No. 6100 has 21 and 22. according to Article 7 of the Bakırköy. It was unanimously decided on 29.02.2016 that the Court of First Instance should be designated as the place of jurisdiction.