Unjust Enrichment (Turkish Code of Obligations Articles 77-82): Conditions, Scope of Reimbursement, and the Most Common Errors in Practice

In daily life, disputes such as "I sent money to the wrong account," "I made a payment based on an invalid contract," "I was paid for work that wasn't done," and "someone else's assets unjustly increased my losses" are common. In such cases, a valid contract or tort liability may not always be established. The fundamental source of liability that fills this gap unjust enrichment.

In the Turkish Code of Obligations, unjust enrichment is regulated in Articles 77-82 . The logic of the law is simple: If a person has unjustly enriched themselves from the property or labor of another person, they are obligated to return that enrichment. This institution aims to correct the balance between "unjust gain" and "uncompensated loss".

Below, I explain the conditions for unjust enrichment, the limits of the obligation to reimburse, the circumstances under which reimbursement is not possible, and the statute of limitations, using the most common scenarios encountered in practice.

1) What is unjust enrichment?

Unjust enrichment occurs when one person's assets increase while another person's assets decrease or their labor is lost, and this increase is not based on a legitimate legal reason . The law specifically highlights cases where the enrichment is based on an invalid reason , a reason that has not yet occurred , or a reason that has subsequently ceased to exist, as typical examples.

2) Conditions for Unjust Enrichment

A) Enrichment (increase in assets)

Enrichment isn't solely about receiving money. Debt forgiveness, the acquisition of a right, relief from a burden, or having an expense covered by someone else can also be considered enrichment. For example, a third party mistakenly paying your debt creates enrichment for the debtor in the form of "relief from a burden.".

B) Impoverishment (decrease in assets / loss due to labor)

There must be a decrease in assets on the other side. This can manifest as an outflow of money or as unpaid labor (lack of compensation for work). The emphasis on "assets or labor" in the legal text is therefore important.

C) Causation (connection)

Enrichment must result from the impoverishment of the other party. It's not enough for the two events to simply exist; an economic/legal link must be established between them. For example, if you mistakenly make a payment to A, it enriches A while impoverishing you; the connection is clear.

D) Lack of justifiable reason

This is the most critical element. A legal basis can be a contract, law, court decision, donation, or other such basis. If this basis does not exist or has subsequently ceased to exist, then "lack of cause" arises.

3) Cases of Lack of Causation in Practice: The 4 Most Common Scenarios

1) Payment made based on an invalid contract

If a contract is invalid due to reasons such as formal irregularities, incapacity, unauthorized representation, or violation of a mandatory provision, the performances based on it are often subject to restitution under the provisions of unjust enrichment (subject to the specific circumstances of the case).

2) A reason that has not yet occurred (the expected task/condition has not been fulfilled)

For example, a payment is made as an "advance payment when work begins"; however, the work never begins. Since the reason did not occur, a refund claim arises. The law's emphasis on "non-occurring reason" covers this area.

3) Cause that has ceased to exist (subsequent disappearance)

In cases of rescission, termination, or cancellation of a contract, the previously valid reason no longer exists, and the return of obligations becomes relevant. The law explicitly refers to this situation with the phrase "reason that has ceased to exist.".

4) Performance of an obligation not owed (wrong payment)

Article 78 of the Turkish Code of Obligations stipulates that for a performance made when there is no debt to be reclaimed, the payer must prove that they made the payment believing themselves to be indebted.
However, the same article the performance of a time-barred debt or the fulfillment of a moral obligation cannot be reclaimed. This makes the distinction between "knowing payment" and "mistake payment" very important in practice.

4) Is Unjust Enrichment a "Secondary" Issue? Considerations in Supreme Court Practice

A common mistake in practice: relying directly on unjust enrichment when a contractual relationship exists. Supreme Court rulings indicate that if the transfer of assets between the parties is based on a valid contract, "unjust enrichment" cannot be invoked; unjust enrichment is, in most cases , a secondary recourse . Therefore, when formulating a petition, the primary legal basis (contract/tort/unauthorized agency, etc.) should first be clarified; the claim of unjust enrichment should only be raised if a genuinely "unjustified" transfer of assets has occurred in the specific case.

5) Scope of Refund: How Much and How Will It Be Refunded?

Article 79 of the Turkish Code of Obligations links the obligation to return the enrichment to the extent of "what remains in the possession of the enriched party": The enriched party returns the portion of the enrichment that they prove to have lost at the time of return.
However, if the enriched party disposed of the property in bad faith or should have foreseen the obligation to return it in the future, the liability expands, and they may be held liable for the entire enrichment.

How are expenses (costs) calculated?

Article 80 of the Turkish Code of Obligations stipulates that a person who has benefited in good faith necessary and beneficial expenses ; however, a person who has benefited in bad faith may only claim the increase in value of the property at the time of restitution.
This provision plays a critical role, particularly in disputes involving "expenditures on another's real estate/business."

6) Non-Recoverable Status: Something Given for an Unlawful/Immoral Purpose

According to Article 81 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, something given with the aim of achieving a result contrary to law or morality cannot be reclaimed.
In practice, this provision is debated within the scope of "forbidden acts," "bribes or similar benefits," or agreements that are clearly contrary to morality. The law also grants the judge the power to decide that such thing should be confiscated by the State.

7) Statute of Limitations: 2-Year / 10-Year Rule (Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 82)

Claim arising from unjust enrichment:

• Two years from the date the rights holder learns of their right to reclaim the property .

• In any case , the statute of limitations expires after 10 years from the date the enrichment occurred

Additionally, Article 82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations stipulates that in cases where enrichment the acquisition of a claim right party, the other party may always raise the defense of "non-performance," even if the claim right has expired due to the statute of limitations.
This detail is of strategic importance, especially in cases arising from "assignment/offsetting/erroneous entry" of receivables.

Conclusion

Unjust enrichment is systematically regulated by Articles 77-82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations; it is a source of debt that balances asset shifts that occur without justifiable cause . In practice, the following three steps are decisive for the correct outcome:

1. To establish the enrichment-poverty-connection-causelessness quartet with concrete evidence,

2. To correctly calculate the scope of the refund within the framework of Articles 79-80 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (good faith/bad faith and expenses),

3. To ensure accurate dating according to the 2/10 year statute of limitations regime in Article 82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations