ABSTRACT
Guarantee Contracts play a significant role especially in the field of international commerce and in the practice of countless financial institutions around the world. As a result of extensive practice, guarantee contracts, as identified by the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), was formed in many different types. The practice embodies various types of guarantee contracts. However, in all types, the guarantor is obliged to pay the amount undertaken under the guarantee, to the obligee of the debt within the context of guarantee, in case of an incidence of hazards, which is guaranteed. After the payment of the mentioned amount, the guarantor shall be entitled to exercise his/ her right to recourse against the third party who is the beneficiary of the assurance. The scope of the right to recourse shall be determined pursuant to its justa causa. The guarantor shall use this right to recourse via an action of debt based on his/her claim for compensation. The amount subject to the mentioned claim would be limited to the amount paid by the guarantor to the obligee.
1. GUARANTEE CONTRACT AS A CONTRACT TYPE
1.1. In General
Assurance contracts shall be made with the purpose to secure a right1 in the event of “(…) a possibility of an economically detrimental and doubtful to emerge but abstained event to occur or a possibility of an expected and economically beneficial event not to occur (…)”2. In this context, the assurance contracts which assure its obligee with a personal security form to the personal assurance contracts. In this type of contracts, the obligee holds the opportunity to claim its credit from whole seizable personal assets of the debtor.
According to the Decision of Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 11.6.1969 and numbered 4/6 regarding the guarantee contracts as one of the personal assurance contracts; “the guarantee contract is one’s warrant to another that a venture is going to reach to certain fruition through a non-secondary contact.” Accordingly, the guarantor undertakes independently the hazard of the venture with the purpose to motivate the beneficiary for a venture, rather than obtaining a consideration.
Despite its common practice in national and international fields, the guarantee contracts are not regulated under neither the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 (“Code of Obligations”) or any other law within Turkish legislation. However, the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals ruled with that its deci-sion dated 4.7.2001 with merits no. 19-534 and decision no. 5833 ; “(…) it is accepted that the guarantee contracts, which are not regulated as an exclusive contract type under the Law, qualifies as undertaking of third party act regulated under the Article 110 of the Code of Obligations (…)” and accepted that the guarantee contracts qualify as ‘Undertaking of Third Party Act’ regulated under the Article 128 of the Code of Obligations. Even though the opinion of the doctrine4 and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals are in the same direction, it is controversial whether the guarantee contracts qualify as undertaking of third party act5.
Also, positive regulation regarding the mentioned contract type is established under the reference Swiss Law; and the guarantee contracts are accepted within the concept of undertaking of third party act under the Article 128 of Code of Obligations that is a reflection of the reference code and as per the practice of the Swiss Supreme Court of Appeals6 and the Turkish Supreme Court of Appeals decisions which are in the same direction with the dominant opinion of the doctrine.
According to the mentioned Article 128 of the Code of Obligations; “(…) One who undertakes the act of a third party to another is obliged to compensate the loss derived from the non-performance of such act (…).” In line with this article, several contract types may be regarded within the scope of an undertaking of third party act. However, while there are guarantee contracts which cannot be included in this concept7, there are contracts which do not qualify as guarantee contracts and can be assessed as an undertaking of third party act8. For example, guarantee contracts in which a guarantor undertakes the risks irrelevant to the third party act, does not qualify as an undertaking of third party act. The idea of that guarantee contracts falling outside of the scope of the Article 128 of the Code of Obligations cannot be formed, is not suitable with the dominant principle of freedom of contract of the Code of Obligations9. Due to this principle, it is not mandatory for the contracts to be formed by the parties to be explicitly regulated under the law. But, it is necessary to state that the problems that may be encountered in practice can be diminished by explicitly regulating contract types like guarantee contracts which are commonly used in commercial life. As a result, currently the guarantee contracts have the characteristics of an idiocratic (sui generis) contract under Turkish Law10.
1.2. Differences with Surety Contract
Even though the surety contracts and the guarantee contracts are different in terms of their validity conditions and features, they are both personal guarantee contracts. The principal aim of both is to provide personal assurance to the obligee by third parties who are not a party to the principal obligation11.
The main difference between a surety contract and a guarantee contract is that in surety contracts, the principal obligation is accessory to the main debt and in guarantee contracts the obligation of the guarantor is independent from the principal obligation. The guarantor undertakes the assurance of the obligation without being liable to the validity conditions and provisions of the principal obligation12.
Besides, due to the fact that the guarantee contracts are not regulated under the law, pursuant to the Article 12 of the Code of Obligations, it is not subject to any form requirement13; while it is mandatory for the surety contract to be made in writing according to the Article 583 of the Code of Obligations.
Another difference between a guarantee contract and a surety contract is that while it is mandatory to state the maximum amount that the surety undertakes in the contract, there is no such obligation for the guarantee contract. However, even if there is no legal obligation for the guarantor to state the maximum amount that he/she is liable for in the contract, as it is decided with the Decision of Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 4.7.2001 with merits no. 19-534 and decision no. 583:
“(…) Having an independent nature from the principal obligatio, the freedom of form prevails in the guarantee contracts and there is no obligation to state the limits of the guarantee in advance unlike the surety contract. But, the freedom of contract is not limitless. Some sorts of limitations to freedom of contract are regulated under the Articles 19 and 20 of the Code of Obligations. In fact, for a contract to be valid it is required to state the rights and obligations explicitly by leaving no room for doubt, in other words the subject matter have to be evident and measurable. Uncertainty cannot be guaranteed. In this respect, even stating the limitation is not a condition, it is required in the guarantee contract that either to state explicitly which risk is guaranteed or the size of the risk to be determinable without causing any hesitation. To state “guaranteeing all kinds of obligations which has borne or to be borne” without identifying which risk is guaranteed, means that an (uncertain) deed with an undeterminable size is guaranteed and this conflicts with the guarantee contract. (…)”
By adopting the principle of “uncertainty cannot be guaranteed” and adjudicated that in the guarantee contracts, at least the guaranteed amount stated in the contract shall be determinable.
1.3. Types of Guarantee Contract
Guarantee contracts can be formed with one of the primary two objections as ‘pure (directing) guarantee contract’ or ‘quasi surety (assuring) guarantee contract’.
i. Quasi Surety (Assuring) Guarantee Contract
In quasi surety guarantee contract, the guarantor guarantees that the debtor is going to perform his/her deed regardless of the validity of the obligation, whether he is the debtor or not, or whether the execution of the contract is possible or not14. In this type of guarantee contracts, the guarantor continues to be responsible of the non-performance of the debtor in case the principal obligation is terminated as a result of the objective impossibility; the principal obligation is terminated as a result of the debtor’s exercise of his/her right of cancellation or even the principal obligation is borne as void. For instance, the letter of guarantee is qualified as guarantee contract as long as it states that the principal debtor waived his/her pleas to exercise within the context of the performance of obligations borne from the letter of guarantee15.
ii. Pure (Directing) Guarantee Contract
Directing guarantee contract is the type of contract in which the guarantor undertakes the hazards of a certain act in whole or in part to be arisen, on behalf of the beneficiary, for the purpose of directing him/her to that act16. Here, an obligatio between the guarantor and the beneficiary is not established yet. Further, sometimes even the ones whose actions are to be guaranteed could be unclear at the time that the contract is formed. Profit guarantees, dividend guarantees, guarantees issued by the banks to the bondholders regarding that the capital and interests to be paid on time or guarantees to close the deficit may be presented as examples17.
1.4. Terms of Guarantee Contract
Guarantee contract is a contract which burden only one party (guarantor) of the contract in principle. By means of this contract, the guarantor undertakes an obligation to compensate the damages borne from the risk materialized from an act or an attempt of the beneficiary. Conversely, the beneficiary does not have an obligation to the guarantor to perform the act or attempt that he is being directed to. As it is seen, the ‘obligation to pay compensation’ of the guarantor constitutes the primary obligation of the guarantee contract while ‘claiming the damages’ by the warrantee constitutes the primary right of the guar-antee contract. The warrantee or the third party whose deed is guaranteed to the warrantee cannot be held accountable to the guarantor and the guarantor also does not have a right to supervise them. However, if there is a separate contractual relationship between the guarantor and the beneficiary, this relationship may provide the guarantor the right to supervise.
Pursuant to the Code of Obligations, the guarantee contract may be formed for a certain period or for an indefinite period. According to the Article 128 of the Code of Obligations, “(…) In the undertaking for a certain period, it may be agreed to end the responsibility of the guarantor in the case that one whose deed is guaranteed is not applied through a form of written application until the end of this period. (…)”. In this case, if the guarantee contract is formed with a certain period and the warrantee is not applied to the guarantor in this period for the performance, the obligee cannot present the guarantee contract for payment. In case the guarantee contract is formed for an indefinite period, pursuant to the Article 125 of the Code of Obligations, the ten year limitation period starting from the date that the obligation is due, shall apply.
2. COMMONLY SEEN ASSURANCES QUALIFY AS GUARANTEE CONTRACTS
The Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (“URDG”) are universally applicable model rules entered into force on July 1st, 2010 by taking shape around the comments and criticisms of ICC by virtue of the applications of demand guarantees of financial institutions from all over the world since 1991. The assurance contract examples having the characteristics of guarantee contracts designated below are regulated under the Guide of Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees URDG 758 regarding the URDG instructions and applications published by ICC18.
2.1. Demand Guarantees
Demand guarantees are irrevocable undertakings issued by the guarantor upon the instructions of the applicant to pay the beneficiary any sum that may be demanded by that beneficiary up to a maximum amount determined in the guarantee. The most common applications (without limitation) of demand guarantees may be listed as;
i. Tender guarantees (bid bonds) cover the obligation of a tenderer not to withdraw its tender until the adjudication of the contract and, if awarded the contract, to sign the contract according to the terms of the offer.
ii. Performance guarantees cover the obligation of a party to deliver the performance promised in the contract. This type of demand guarantees are sometimes provided to balance the buyer’s obligation to procure the issue of a documentary of credit assuring that the seller or contract is paid.
iii. Advance payment guarantees are provided to guarantee to prevent the loss of the party arisen due to the fact that the contract is not duly performed by other party who has received advance payment before the contract is performed in consequence of the mentioned ad-vance payment.
iv. Retention money guarantees refer to the guarantees provided by the seller or contractors in favor of the buyer by the reason of the risk of loss (by reason of deterioration etc.) which may be arisen after the delivery of the goods or works.
v. Warranty guarantees cover the supplier’s or contractor’s performance of obligation to maintain the equipment, goods, works or services delivered in a state corresponding to the agreed contract specifications during an agreed period.
vi. Customs guarantees refers to the guarantees which may be issued to the customs author-ity or tax authority by the insurant to cover the public receivables arisen from a mistake during the customs clearance procedures.
vii. Payment guarantees cover the guarantees to be issued for any payment related to a contract.
viii. Parent company guarantees secure the performance of contracts or payment obligations of affiliates or partnerships of the guarantor. Similarly, according to the local banking regulations, banks sometimes issue this type of guarantees in favor of the parent company’s affiliates and partnerships abroad to avoid the transfer or the capital funds.
ix. Reinsurance guarantee refers to the repeating guarantees issued by the reinsurers in favor of the insurers to avoid the difficulties in payments of substantial damages which may be arisen from the risks that they guaranteed by spreading the insured risks among several insurers.
x. Risk participation which are conceptually similar to reinsurance guarantees, allow banks and other financial institutions or entities to issue a demand guarantee in favor of the lender, thus sharing the borrower’s default risk without having a relationship with the borrower.
xi. Guarantees issued by multilateral financial institutions cover the payment risk of borrowers from developing economies with a view to encouraging lenders from developed economies to engage in local financing with a view to fostering growth in the local economy and transferring credit know-how to local banks.
xii. Sub-contract guarantees refers to the demand guarantees which assure the sub-contractors the payment of sums due to them under the sub-contract in the event that the main contractor defaults on any payment due issued by the main contractor.
xiii. Court guarantees ( judicatum solvi or appeal bonds) are procured by one or both litigants to guarantee the payment of money ordered in the judgment, the case and attorney costs or in the case of arbitration, the arbitrators’ fees.
2.2. Counter Guarantees
Counter guarantees refers to the undertakings which provide bank guarantees regarding a guarantee or a letter of guarantee to be issued. In this respect, counter guarantee enters into force by issuance of the party who provides the counter guarantee to the other party to issue a guarantee or another counter guarantee and with an undertaking with signature regardless to its name or definition containing the condition of payment upon the presentation of a suitable demand of the beneficiary for whom the counter guarantee is issued. The primary feature of the counter guarantee is its independent nature from the principal obligatio and the guarantee issued as a consequence of the counter guarantee.
Nowadays, counter guarantees find their field of practice in commercial life through the letter of guarantees issued by the Turkish banks via a foreign counter guarantee or through an issuance of a letter of guarantee of a foreign bank in consequence of the issuance of a counter guarantee of a Turkish bank to apply for a letter of guar-antee to a foreign bank in favor of a specified obligee to the beneficiary by reason of an application of a foreign resident beneficiary for a letter of guarantee issued in his/her own country’s bank.
Similar to the confirmation in letter of guarantees, it is occasionally encountered the confirmation of the letter of guarantee issued by the Turkish bank by foreign bank in practice. This type of confirmations amount to a guarantee in legal sense as well19.
3. RECOURSE IN GUARANTEE CONTRACTS
3.1. Right to Recourse
Right to recourse has two different definitions; “withdraw, return, retract, retraction” and “claim of one who made the payment from others who were obliged to make it in part or in whole”20. Recourse from contract states the first definition of recourse. As for the recourse within the guarantee contracts, recourse is used in its second meaning.
There are different opinions on the legal characteristics of the right to recourse. According to one opinion, the right to recourse refers to a succession-based claim in accordance with the Articles 168 and 169 of the Code of Obligations which regulate that the debtor within a joint indebtedness borne from legal transaction who paid more than his/her share succeeds based on the payment in proportion21. Another opinion is that, according to the Articles 61 and 62 of the Code of Obligations, the right to recourse refers to a personal claim which has the characteristics of indemnity arising from a joint liability situation which emerged by jointly causing a damage or being responsible for the same damage in different reasons. Hereunder, the right to recourse is a new right borne from the individual who paid to obligee independent from the rights of obligee22. As a result of evaluating both approaches, it can be said that right to recourse constitutes a new claim which is originated from Articles 61 and 62 of the Code of Obligations and to be interpreted with the Articles 168 and 169 of the Code of Obligations.
3.2. Recourse in Guarantee Contracts
i. Emergence of the Right to Recourse
Right to recourse of the guarantor in guarantee contracts is against the obligee of the primary obligatio. For the guarantor to be able to use the mentioned right to recourse, certain conditions must be fulfilled. First, the guarantee contract must be validly formed in form and in basis. Valid formation of a guarantee contract as an atypical contract is not conditioned with a form requirement pursuant to the Article 12 of the Code of Obligations. However, the guarantee commitment that is the basis of the recourse must be a guarantee contract in essence.
In this direction the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals adjudicated that a guarantee contract is formed when the wills are unified and not being conditioned with any form requirement by stating that; “(…) Guarantee contract validity is not conditioned with any form requirement, it is sufficient that the wills of the parties are unified. As a guarantee contract, the letter of guarantee derives obligations for the bank upon the wills of both bank and obligee are unified (…)” in its decision with merits no. 1989/4046 and decision no. 1990/8459.
Besides, the 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals decided that the contracts stating the inscriptions of “(…) Total sum called in including the negotiated interest rate and all kinds of other costs will be paid on the first written request irrevocably without any limits, requirement to enter a protest, court decision or (…) consent to be gained or consideration of any conflict between the obligees or the legal consequences (…)” are vested with the characteristics of guarantee contracts in its decision dated 3.5.2002 with merits no. 01/2083 and decision no. 02/334023.
The second condition for a right to recourse to be borne is the fulfillment of the performance borne from the guarantee contract of the guarantor via payment to the obligee.
Finally, as excluding torts since they cannot be considered in this respect, for the guarantor to exercise his/her right to recourse to the third party whose deed is guaranteed, a contractual responsibility of the guaranteed third party to the warrantee regarding the performance of the deed subject to the guarantee must be present. In this possibility, the third party who has the contractual responsibility to the warrantee could also have a contractual responsibility to the guarantor for the same damage. The most common version of this is seen in case of a third party whose in favor the letter of guarantee is issued, also issuing a counter guarantee having the characteristics of a guarantee contract to the bank. When the bank cashes the letter of guarantee, according to the counter guarantee it would recourse to the beneficiary who is also the third party in terms of the first guarantee contract.
ii. Scope of the Right to Recourse
In case of presence of a counter guarantee, the legal character of the counter guarantee is also qualifies as representation in doctrine2424, in this respect the representation contract provisions shall be implemented.
As an atypical type of contract, the scope of right to recourse in guarantee contract shall be determined in accordance with the legal basis of recourse and the relationship between the guarantor and the beneficiary if a counter guarantee is not present as described in the previous section.
According to this, the right to recourse, reserving the provisions of torts in the Article 61 of the Code of Obligations, shall be interpreted with the representation, negotiorum gestio or unjust enrichment which are the preferential special provisions to be implemented due to ‘lex specialis derogat legi generali’ (special provision eliminates the general provision) principle along with the general provisions of the Code of Obligations.
For the recognition of the presence of a valid representation, following essential elements of representation contract must be met:
• Representative having an obligation of performance against the principal
• The performance not amounting to another type of transaction contract under the code
• Transaction to be performed in accordance with the advantage and will of someone else
• Representative not bearing any risk of failure to obtain results of the transaction, and
• The contract between the parties being fulfilled.
In case of a valid representation, the guarantor acting in the capacity of representative must be considered as being able to request the expenses in addition to the content of the right to recourse based on the Article 510 of the Code of Obligations. To assert this claim, naturally, the representative must fulfill the obligations arising from the representation contract in compliance with the instructions in due form by means of showing all kinds of care and attention25.
If there is no representation relationship, the guarantor exercises his/her claim for recourse according to the negotiorum gestio provisions. In this case, since no special provision is regulated regarding the guarantee contract, the scope of the right to recourse shall be determined in accordance with the Article 529 of the Code of Obligations like surety and as a result the guarantor shall have the right to claim only the essential and beneficial expenses which are suitable to the needs of the situation and the interest to be charged on them26.
Besides, in the cases the application of representation provisions or negotiorum gestio provisions is not possible and in any case, the guarantor may assert his/her right to recourse according to unjust enrichment provisions regulated under the Articles between 77 and 82 of the Code of Obligations27.
On the other hand, the decision dated 28.05.2013 with merits no. 12/19635 and decision no. 2013/11653 of the 10th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals states that;
“(…) Succession must be stated in law for one who fulfilled the obligations to be able to succeed to the rights of obligee. (…) In other words, succession types are subject to the limited availability (numerous clausus) principle (…)”.
Therefore, according to the abovementioned decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, succession is borne only in the situations explicitly prescribed by law. Therefore, as an atypical type of contract, guarantee contract is not based on the succession principle and succeeding in proportion to the payment made by guarantor is not in question. The right to recourse of the guarantor refers to a new right with the characteristics of compensation.
iii. Right to Recourse Against the Third Party
The right to recourse of the guarantor; who fulfilled the obligation of indemnification to the third party is borne only in the case that the third party is also liable for the damages occurred by the warrantee28. In this respect, such liability arises solely in two following options;
• Although the subject of guarantee is not the act of the third party, third party may still be liable for the damages arising from the occurrence of the risk, on the grounds of tort against the warrantee.
• Third party may be held liable against the warrantee due to the contractual relation consisting a deed to be performed which is guaranteed by the guarantor.
In the first option, liability issue will be solved according to Article 61/II of the Code of Obligations. In order to be applied, the third party must be liable for the tortious act against the warrantee by virtue of the occurrence of the risk. The guarantor whose liability emerged from the contract may recourse the damages caused by the tortious act to the third party. In order to illustrate one could mention that in an antique vase sales contract, the antique vase guaranteed to be sold to the buyer is broken by a third party before the delivery of the item. In this situation, if it is considered that the primary obligatio is terminated due to the objective impossibility, the guarantor compensates the damages derived from the non-performance of the contract. The guarantor shall recourse the damages he/she compensated to the third party as long as the actions of third party could be included within the scope of the Article 61 of the Code of Obligations.
In the second option, if the guarantor fulfills its obligation of indemnification deriving from the guarantee contract, the guarantor can use its right to recourse against the third party for the payment on the basis of the contractual relationship between them. The guarantor shall be entitled to use the right to recourse by proving the payment for indemnification and fulfilling the conditions for the right to recourse procedure which will be mentioned in the section below.
iv. The Procedure to Exercise the Right to Recourse
Right to recourse is, as held in the decision of the 10th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 28.05.2013 and with the merits no. 2012/19635 and decision no. 2013/11653; “(…) Right to claim with the characteristics of indemnification which aims to compensate the loss on the assets of a person who fulfilled the obligation of another (…)” Before anything else, the exercise of this right is possible in case of it is not lost and as long as it is not lost29.
In practice, the right to recourse is used through a lawsuit and by enforcement of a court order. Also, as held in the decision of the 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 15.06.2001 with the merits no. 511 and decision no. 4641; “(…) Since the indemnification of the letter of guarantee which is propounded lost requires a trial for the bank to use the right to recourse (…)”, right to recourse can only be exercised through a lawsuit. The recourse action is an action of debt with claim for damage. The recourse action is also called action of application30.
Since the recourse action is an action of debt with the characteristics of claim for damages, it also includes the indemnification of damage. The guarantor, as the plaintiff, should prove the followings in such lawsuit;
• The defendant’s liability against the obligee of the primary obligatio,
• That he/she having paid an amount of money in whole or in part to cover the damages of the obligee, and
• That he/she is entitled to a right to recourse based upon the rules stipulated in the internal relation between him/ her and the defendant
Lawsuits regarding the right to recourse are heard before competent and authorized courts with respect to the main dispute, regardless of the amount31. This is determined according to the legal reason behind the application of the obligee to the debtor for recourse.
The demand amount to be subjected in the recourse action is limited to the amount paid by the plaintiff to the obligee. In this context, the compensation amount paid by the recourse obligee to the primary oblige, the statutory and contractual interests and the expenses of litigation are calculated32.
4. CONCLUSION
Guarantee contract, in definition, is made by providing a non- ancillary undertaking of assurance that the risks of the venture will not be materialized for the purpose of directing a third party to a venture. As a result of common practice, in guarantee contracts that are formed in various types, the guarantor’s right to recourse is borne with the payment of the amount to the obligee as a result of the occurrence of the hazards, the non-materialization of which were guaranteed in the guarantee contract. The scope of the right to recourse is identified according to its legal basis. The guarantor shall be able to exercise his/ her right to recourse against the beneficiary after he/she paid the amount to the obligee. In this respect, the scope of right to recourse is identified in accordance with pro-visions of representation contract in case of the presence of a counter guarantee. In other cases, the scope of the right to recourse may be determined in accordance with the legal basis of recourse as representation, negotiorum gestio or, either way, unjust enrichment by the judge but cannot be determined according to the succession provisions due to the limited availability principle in succession. The guarantor exercises his/her right through a lawsuit as a debt action with a claim for compensation. In this respect, the demand amount subjected to the recourse is limited to the amount of the sum paid to the obligee, however the contractual and legal interests are also considered in the calculation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Affaki, G., & Goode, R. (2011). Guide to ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees URDG 758. Paris: ICC Services Publications.
Barlas, N. (2008). Determination of the Type of the Assurance in Credit Card Relationship, Articles. İstanbul.
Bilgin Yüce, M. (2007). Contract of Undertaking of Third Party Act as a Type of Guarantee Contract. İstanbul.
Canbolat, F. (2009). Grounds of Pleas and Interim Injunctions in Bank Guarantees. Ankara: Yetkin Publications.
Demir Yüce, Ö. (2008). Obligations of Parties in Surety Contracts. Ankara: Unpublished Masters Thesis.
Hatemi, H., Serozan, R., & Arpacı, A. (1992). Code of Obligations Special Provisions. İstanbul.
İşgüzar, H. (2003). Credit Card Contracts of Banks. Ankara.
Karahasan, M. R. (1989). Law of Liability and Compensation. İstanbul.
Karslı, A. (1994). Recourse Actions in Terms of Law of Procedure. İstanbul.
Kılıçoğlu, M. (2002). Law of Liability. Ankara: Turhan Publications.
Özsunay, E. (1983). Code of Obligations 1. İstanbul. Öztürk, İ. Z. (2012). Recourse Relationships in Personal Assurance Contracts. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi University Social Sciences Institute Masters Program in Law (Economic Law) Thesis.
Perçin, A. H. (2008). Guarantee Contract with a Purpose of Assurance. İstanbul: Unpublished Master Thesis.
Reisoğlu, S. (1964). Turkish Surety Law. Ankara.
Reisoğlu, S. (2003). Letter of Guarantees and Counter Guarantees. Ankara.
Şahin, T. (2010). Undertaking of Third Party Act. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.
Tandoğan, H. (1959). Guarantee Contracts (Its Character and Distinction from Similar Contracts). Ankara.
Tandoğan, H. (1987). Code of Obligations Special Provisions. Ankara.
Tekinalp, Ü. (1988). Rules of Banking Law. İstanbul.
Turkish Code of Obligations. (11.1.2011, Şubat 04). Official Gazette: Date: 4/2/2011 Number: 27836.
Yavuz, C. (2014). Course of Code of Obligations Special Provisions. İstanbul: Beta Publications.
Yenice, A. Ö. (2009). Recourse Relationships in Assurance Contracts. İstanbul: 12 Levha Publications.
Yılmaz, E. (2003). Legal Dictionary. Ankara.
FOOTNOTE
1 Hatemi, Hüseyin; Serozan, Rona; Arpacı, Abdülkadir. “Code of Obligations Special Provisions”, p. 519, İstanbul, 1992.
2 Tandoğan, Haluk. “Code of Obligations Special Provisions”, p. 684, v. 2, Ankara, 1987.
3 Decision of Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 27.10.1982, merits no. 11-1915 decision no. 865; Decision of Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 13.12.196, merits no. 16 decision no. 7; Decision of Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 11.6.1969, mertis no.4 decision no. 6; Decision of the 13. Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 3.3.2005, merits no. 04/16382, decision no.05/3236.
4 Tekinalp, Ünal. “Banka Hukuku’nun Esasları”, p.373, İstanbul, 1988.
5 Barlas, Nami. “Determination of the Type of the Assurance in Credit Card Relationship”, p. 149, Articles, v.1, İstanbul, 2008.
6 BGE 76 II 35, BGE 72 II 22; BGE 64 II 350; BGE 39 II 774.
7 Canbolat, Ferhat. “Grounds of Pleas and Interim Injunctions in Bank Guarantees”, pp. 36-37, Yetkin Publications, Ankara, 2009.
8 Yavuz, Cevdet. “Course of Code of Obligations Special Provisions”, p. 826, Beta Publications, Istanbul,2014.
9 6098 Code of Obligations, Article 26
10 Tandoğan, Haluk. “Guarantee Contracts (Its Character and Distinction from Similar Contracts)”, p. 44, Ankara, 1959.
11 Yenice, A. Özge. “Recourse Relationships in Assurance Contracts”, p. 99, 12 Levha Publications, April 2009, Istanbul.
12 İşgüzar, Hasan. “Credit Card Contracts of Banks”, p. 197, Ankara, 2003.
13 Özsunay, Ergun. “Code of Obligations 1”, p. 153, Istanbul, 1983.
14 Yavuz, Cevdet. “Course on Code of Obligations Special Provisions”, p. 827, Beta Publications, Istanbul, 2014.
15 Yavuz, Cevdet. “Course on Code of Obligations Special Provisions”, p. 827, Beta Publications, Istanbul, 2014.
16 İşgüzar, Hasan. “Credit Card Contracts of Banks”, p. 197, Ankara, 2003.
17 Reisoğlu, Seza. “Turkish Surety Law”, p. 945, Ankara, 1964.
18 Affaki, Georgers; Goode, Roy. “Guide to ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees URDG 758”, p. 2-5 ICC Services Publications, Paris, 2011
19 Reisoğlu, Seza. “Letter of Guarantees and Counter Guarantees”, p. 443, Ankara, 2003.
20 Yılmaz, Ejder. “Legal Dictionary”, 6. Edition, Ankara, 2003.
21 Kılıçoğlu, Mustafa. “Law of Liability”, p. 546, v.1, Non- Contractual Liability, Turhan Yayınevi, Ankara, 2002.
22 Karslı, Abdürrahim. “Recourse Actions in Terms of Law of Procedure”, Istanbul, 1994.
23 Yenice, A. Özge. “Recourse in Assurance Contracts”, p. 110, 12 Levha Publications, April 2009, Istanbul.
24 Bilgin Yüce, Melek. “Contract of Undertaking of Third Party Act as a Type of Guarantee Contract”, p. 1440, Istanbul, 2007.
25 Demir Yüce, Özlem. “Obligations of Parties in Surety Contracts”, Unpublished Master Thesis, Ankara, 2008.
26 Öztürk, İdil Zeynep. “Recourse in Personal Assurance Contracts”, İstanbul Bilgi University Institute of Social Sciences Masters of Arts of Law (Economic Law) Thesis, Istanbul, 2012.
27 Tandoğan, Haluk. “Code of Obligations Special Provisions”, p. 879, v.1, 3. Edition, Ankara, 1987; Perçin, Ali Haydar. “Guarantee Contract with a Purpose of Assurance”, s. 184, Unpublished Master Thesis, Istanbul, 2008.
28 Tandoğan, Haluk. “Code of Obligations Special Provisions”, p. 684, v. 2, Ankara, 1987.
29 Karahasan, Mustafa Reşit. “Law of Liability and Compensation”, p. 1085, İstanbul, 1989.
30 Karahasan, Mustafa Reşit. “Law of Liability and Compensation”, p. 1085, İstanbul, 1989.
31 Karslı, Abdurrahim. “Recourse Cases in Terms of Law of Procedure”, p. 94, İstanbul, 1994.
32 Karslı, Abdurrahim. “Recourse Cases in Terms of Law of Procedure”, p. 117, İstanbul, 1994.
