In our country, in parallel with industrialization, the phenomenon of urbanization, which is developing even faster than industrialization, has developed at the same pace as the housing problem. Citizens of large cities
since the policies aimed at creating cheap labor by stacking have not been implemented together with serious planning, the solution of the housing needs of large piles has been left to its own flow.
This practice has led to slums on the one hand and distorted urbanization on the other. Housing projects implemented by the state, initially there were none, and now they are insufficient. Moreover, not only in large cities, but also in Anatolia, the way of production is moving from agriculture to industry, and in parallel, even in small cities, there is an intensive migration from the countryside to the city. In small cities, public housing projects of the state
it is not applied. Thus, the solution of the housing problem is abandoned to the flow of the market without being connected to any plan. In order to solve this need, the market has given priority to apartment-type construction, so that construction has started with the help of contractors. Dec decommissioned decommissioned land jul-ture to meet this need has been released to the market, with exceptions, and contractors have satisfied the need for land by following the vacant lots and making a “construction contract for floor” (as defined in MK, “construction contract for land share”) with their owners. Thus, construction contracts for floors and disputes arising from them have left their mark on the last thirty to forty years. The most common of these disputes is related to whether it will be possible to return from the construction contract for the floor in such a way as to have an effective result. As is known, the floor equivalent construction contract is a mixed qualified contract. The contracts that constitute a mixed agreement are the ”exception agreement“ and the ”real estate sales promise Agreement”. The owner of the plot of land from the contracting parties dec,
he is in the position of promising the sale of real estate, and the contractor is the one who promises to receive this real estate. From this point of view, the contract is a “promise to sell real estate”. However, the contractor,
instead of paying money for the purchase of real estate, he will build on this real estate and give part of this building to the dec of the land plot. From this point of view, the contract is an exception agreement. The validity of this mixed contract is tied to the official form, with the opinion that the promise of the sale of real estate predominates, it is accepted that it should be made at least in the form of a notarized arrangement. From the point of view of the type of contract, the floor equivalent construction contract is one of the sudden active contracts. That is, the parties fulfill their debts arising from this agreement at once and get rid of the debt; the owner of the land transfers the deed to the contractor at once, and the contractor also deconstructs the construction
he is obliged to complete it and hand it over to the dec of the land plot at once. From this agreement, the lease agreement, etc. as it is, there is no more than one recurring performance debt that is common to time. With this
together, in particular, the contractor’s debt for the delivery of construction is a debt that takes a long time, which can be fulfilled over time. As such, during the performance of the contract, third parties may dec
for example, some people buy an apartment from a contractor before the delivery debt is fulfilled
cases are encountered quite often. In addition, since it is actually mandatory to fulfill the performance in time, the legal institutions to be applied in case of partial performance have created hesitation. In particular, it was discussed whether the landowner has the opportunity to return from the contract in accordance with DEC 106-108 if the contractor defaults on the construction debt in full or in part. Because in case of a reversal, the parties are obliged to give back to each other what they have received. However, if part of the construction has been done, it will require a lot of damage to disassemble this part. The construction left on the land plot will be the dec of the land plot. Is it right, then, that the owner of the land plot is granted the right to return decently only on the basis that the contract is sudden? Or should the owner of the land be given the opportunity to terminate it, as in the case of decently active contracts, instead of returning from the contract? As is known, termination is a way of terminating contracts with continuous performance in such a way that the results of the agreement will be effective in the future. In other words, at termination, the contract remains valid until the moment of termination, legal consequences, termination
it is born from moment to moment. The Supreme Court of Cassation attributed this problem to an average formula; as a rule, it kept open the possibility of returning from the contract – in a way that would be effective backward; but if the nature and characteristics of the incident justify it, especially if a significant part of the construction has been done, akdin recognizes that it can be effectively terminated in the future
he has

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir