Defects in Will and Declaration in Contracts

The fundamental constituent element of a legal transaction is the declaration of intent. A declaration of intent consists of the elements of will and statement. In a valid declaration of intent, the will and statement must be consistent with each other. In some cases, it is said that the will and the statement are not consistent. This inconsistency is characterized as a defect of intent. the Turkish Code of Obligations, defects of intent are regulated under the headings of "error" (mistake), "deception" (fraud), and "coercion" (force and threat). Error is further divided into "error in statement" and "error in motive." If, during the expression of a properly formed will to the addressee, an inconsistency occurs between the will and the statement, a defect of statement exists.

Conditions of Impaired Will

Mistake

A fundamental error is when a person making a declaration of intent unintentionally makes a statement that does not conform to their intention. Errors are divided into two types: error in declaration and error in motive. The Turkish Code of Obligations only considers fundamental error as a ground for invalidity. Mistake (error) is regulated in two different ways in the Turkish Code of Obligations. In the first case, the mistake is an error in the statement that causes a disruption in the harmony between the intention and the declaration. In the second case, there is a false belief or a flawed intention that does not correspond to reality. According to Article 30 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a party who falls into fundamental error while forming a contract is not bound by the contract. The effect of fundamental error on the contract is stipulated in Article 39 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: if the party who entered into the contract due to error does not declare that they are not bound by the contract or demand the return of what they gave within one year from the moment they learned of the error, they are deemed to have ratified the contract.

Cases of Fundamental Error

These error conditions can be grouped under four headings.

Statement error

In cases of error in declaration, the individual's intention to perform the legal transaction is properly formed, but a discrepancy occurs between the intention and the declaration at the stage of expressing it. Situations that can be considered fundamental errors are listed in Article 24/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. These are errors in the nature of the legal transaction, errors in the subject matter of the legal transaction, errors in the person, and errors in the amount of the performance or counter-performance.

Motive error

In a case of error of motive, there must be a connection between the erroneous assessments and the individual's intention to perform the legal transaction (appropriate causal link). In the case of error of motive, there is no difference between the individual's true intention and the intention they express; only the error that caused the formation of the intention is present.

Cheat

The act of creating a false impression about someone's intentions in order to bring about the conclusion of a contract.

Threat and coercion

Threats are regulated in Articles 29 and 30 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. According to Article 29/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a person is not bound by a contract if they have entered into it as a result of a threat from the other party or a third party. For a threat to exist, there must be a danger directed at the person performing the legal transaction or their relatives.

The future of a contract entered into under duress depends on the decision and actions of the party whose will was impaired. The contract remains suspended until the party with impaired will makes a decision.

Supreme Court decision on the matter

19th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/5270 E., Decision No. 2015/2100 K.

"Case Law Text"

COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
Following the trial of the negative declaratory judgment case between the parties, the judgment rejecting the case for the reasons stated in the ruling was appealed by the plaintiff's attorney with a request for a hearing. Summonses were sent to the relevant parties. On the appointed day, the plaintiff's attorney, Av. …, appeared, but no one else appeared. Therefore, the hearing commenced in their absence. After listening to the oral statement of the attorney present and confirming that the appeal petition was filed within the time limit, the file was examined, and the matter was discussed and considered.

DECISION
The plaintiff's attorney argued that his client had no debt to the creditor of the promissory note subject to the enforcement proceedings, that he learned the note was signed by him through fraud and deception among his workplace documents, and that an investigation was initiated by the Kahramanmaraş Chief Public Prosecutor's Office under file number 2012/1754 Hz. following a complaint. He requested that the court determine that the promissory note was without consideration and cancel the enforcement proceedings; or, failing that, that the promissory note, which was lost due to his client's defective will, error, fraud, or lack thereof, be declared null and void, that his client is not indebted, that the enforcement proceedings be canceled, and that he be awarded compensation for bad faith.
The defendant's attorney argued that the investigation file resulted in a decision of no grounds for prosecution, that the allegations were untrue, and that the plaintiff filed this lawsuit to avoid paying the debt after his objection to the signature in the Enforcement Law Court was rejected. He requested the dismissal of the lawsuit and compensation for bad faith.
Based on the evidence gathered and witness statements heard during the trial, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim that the promissory note in question was fraudulently signed among other documents at the workplace, thus vitiating his free will, and that the note was therefore invalid due to nullity, could not be proven, and the case was dismissed. The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff's attorney.
Considering the documents in the file, the evidence supporting the decision, and the reasons justifying it, and finding no error in the assessment of the evidence, all the appeal objections of the plaintiff's attorney, which are deemed unfounded, are rejected, and the judgment, which is in accordance with procedure and law, is AFFIRMED. The affirmation fee, as stated below, shall be collected from the appellant. The decision was made unanimously on February 18, 2015.

You can consult with Attorney Ferhat Kule to get answers to all the details and questions you may have

Merve Zengin