Allegation of violation of form in real estate sales promise agreement and abuse of right - SUMMARY: Since the assertion of lack of form clearly constitutes injustice, for the recognition of the real right and the protection of the individual, it is obligatory to operate the provision of Article 2/2 of the TCC, which arises from this necessity and provides an extraordinary opportunity, in other words, the rule of form requirement should be neglected, not the rule of prohibition of abuse of right. Indeed, the judiciary is obliged to be sensitive in cases where it is desired to obtain benefits outside the purpose of the formal provision. This is because the law is only useful for the satisfaction of legitimate interests, and if it is used for something else, it loses its raison d'être. In the face of all these, it should be accepted that the defendant's defense that the contract is invalid because it was not made in an official manner, and therefore they cannot be held responsible for the fair value of the immovable property, is contrary to the rule of prohibition of abuse of right. . . . . 17. In our legal system, the exceptional circumstances, which are concluded by the rule of good faith, have sometimes been transformed into an objective practice through case-law consolidation decisions. 18. As a matter of fact, the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, in its Unification Decision dated 25.01.1984 and numbered 1983/3 E., 1984/1 K., dated 25.01.1984, discussed the issue in relation to exception contracts and stated that in construction contracts, which are a type of exception contracts, in the event of termination of the contract by the owner due to the default of the contractor by not completing the work at the specified time due to…
Allegation of violation of form in real estate sales promise agreement and abuse of right
