ABSTRACT
Non-liability agreements are agreements that limit or eliminate the liability of an obligor and that is established before the obligor breaches his/her contractual obligations. However, the legislator imposed some limitations on non-liability agreements in order to prevent an imbalance of power between the parties to the detriment of one of the parties. As a rule, contracts stating that the obligor is not responsible for gross negligence are invalid; however, in cases of an occurrence of liability by service contract between the parties or where a specialized field activity is conducted with permission of a competent authority, non-liability agreements regarding slight negligence of the obligor are certainly considered valid. Further, if a contractual liability is considered as a tortious act, a non-liability agreement is valid also for tortious liability in accordance with the dominant opinions of the doctrine.
In the law of obligation, a fault is a key fact of responsibility that arises from the contradiction to obligation as well as from a tortious act. The concept of fault in terms of a non-liability agreement is no different from the term is sought for tortious act as to context.
I. INTRODUCTION
According to Article 112 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO”), an obligor is liable to the obligee for any damages arising from non-performance or neglect of obligations. While this is the main rule, an exception to this rule is regulated in Article 115 of the TCO. In accordance with this Article, before the occurrence of any neglect, the obligor and the obligee can agree that the obligor shall not be liable for damages. In this article non-liability agreements specified within the scope of Article 115 of the TCO will be analysed. In contract law, parties may limit the liabilities of the obligor under the principle of “freedom of contract”. However, this principle is restricted. As the obligor’s default is considered a breach of contract, fault and liability terms will be explained in this article.
II. TERMS OF NEGLIGENCE AND FAULT
A. Fault
Fault is a form of behaviour that is condemned and disapproved of by the rule of the law1 or failure to execute reasonable care, or violation of the principles of living together2. It is also defined as a value judgment carried out on the person who acts against the law3. According to another description, fault is the intention to bring about an illegal result or not use adequate will (omission) to prevent the result even if there was no intent4.
In the law of obligation, a fault is a key fact of responsibility that arises from the contradiction to obligation as well as from a tortious act. The concept of fault in terms of a non-liability agreement is no different from the term is sought for tortious act as to context. However, in the case of tort a fault is a breach of general behavioural obligations, but in a contractual relationship it is a breach of obligations arising from the contract5.
Fault in tort liability is a breach of a responsibility assigned by legal order, either negligent or intentional. However, fault in contractual liability is the obligor’s deliberate or negligent breach of obligations arising from the contract6.
The law-maker assigns important consequences to an obligor’s fault. According to Article 114 of the TCO, an obligor is liable for all kinds of faults. Article 115 of the code states that an obligor is liable for gross negligence and wilful misconduct. Under this Article, the obligor may have a non-liability agreement only for slight negligence7.
B. Liability
The concept of liability has two meanings. The first meaning is responsibility for a breach of obligations through an unlawful act or actions8. In the second sense, liability is an obligee’s claim against an obligor’s assets, resulting from non-conductance of the debts through the official authorities9.
III. NON-LI ABILITY AGREEMENTS
A. Definition of a Non-liability Agreement
In the doctrine, a non-liability agreement is an independent agreement or clause within a contract that has been entered into explicitly or implicitly by an obligor and obligee and is executed before any damages have arisen from a breach of contract. The agreement restricts wholly or partially the compensation that may arise in favour of the obligee10. The purpose of forming a non-liability agreement is to prevent the creditor demanding compensation. The principle of “freedom of contract” and the corresponding freedom of determining the content of the contract make it possible for such an agreement to be signed. In accordance with this, parties may execute a contract on the basis of content and subject of their choice, unless this is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law, public order, morality or personal rights. The parties may specify the extent, quantity and results of the responsibility within the scope of the non-liability agreement before the occurrence of any damage11.
Additionally, if one of the parties to a contract is in a stronger position, it is possible for one party to impose a non-liability agreement on the other party. Because of this, with Article 115 of TCO, the legislator tried to prevent any unlawfulness of negotiation agreements through attempting to establish a power imbalance12.
B. The Legal Characteristics of a Non-Liability Agreement
A non-liability agreement is a mutual legal transaction established as a bilateral and consentaneous declaration of intent by both parties. With this agreement, the creditor puts
Additionally, if one of the parties to a contract is in a stronger position, it is possible for one party to impose a non-liability agreement on the other party. Restrictions on a right that does not presently exist but is likely to exist in the future. So in this sense, a non-liability agreement waives the right to claim compensation from the creditor in the future. While for the creditor this agreement disposes of rights, the obligor acquires rights. The consequences of a non-liability agreement arise with the occurrence of a debtor’s tort. A non-liability agreement prevents a possible reduction in the assets of the obligor so it is a gaining process in terms of the obligor13.
C. The Constitution of a NonLiability Agreement
A non-liability agreement can be established as an independent contract, but in practice it is usually included as a clause within an existing contract14. The important issue here is that a non-liability agreement must be executed before the occurrence of any damage. In other words, contracts that exempt compensation liability after a breach of responsibility has occurred are not non-liability agreements.However, these agreements may be recognised as compromise and release agreements15. In order for there to be a non-liability agreement, there must be a contract between the obligor and creditor. Unless a main contract exists, there can be no responsibility arising from the actual contract, in which case there is no contract limiting or eliminating the rights or responsibilities16. In other words, the validity of non-liability agreements is related to the effectiveness of the main contract17.
The limitation of compensation composed by violation of debt may be determined by the obligor and creditor within the context of the non-liability agreement in advance. Apart from this, non-liability agreements may be limited in terms of the subject, person, asset and time18.
D. A Non-Liability Agreement Within the Context of Article 115 of the TCO
Article 115 of the TCO restricts non-liability agreements under certain conditions. According to this Article, non-liability agreements are an elimination of responsibility from the establishment of the contract in terms of the levels of negligence, by parties’ agreement before the formation of damages19. In other words, first of all there should be an agreement between the parties that waives the right of the obligor to seek compensation and this agreement must be concluded before the loss occurs20.
There are three main objectives under the limitation of non-liability agreements. The first objective is to prevent the obligor failing to honour the contract by intent and gross negligence. In another words, the legislator intends that an obligor who does not fulfil his obligation through gross negligence and wilful misconduct cannot take advantage of a non-liability agreement such that he avoids the results of the gross negligence21.
The second purpose is protection of the creditor. The legislator aims to protect the creditor who risks his economic future due to unpredictable damage, in terms of the contract which based upon the violation of debt, before the occurrence of the damage because of the immorality of the contract22.
The final objective is that it is an observance of power balances, which justify the limitation of responsibility23.
Article 115/1 of the TCO
Article 115/1 of the TCO states that “The prior agreement which is regulated that the obligor will not be liable for gross negligence, is certainly void.” According to the clear provision of the law, contracts where the obligor is not liable for responsibilities in the event of gross negligence are invalid. On the other hand, it is possible to exempt the responsibility arising from slight negligence24. In the event of gross negligence, not only do contracts that eliminate responsibilities become invalid but also contracts that limit compensation or aggravate the demand for compensation also certainly become void.
Article 115/1 of the TCO states that “The prior agreement which is regulated that the obligor will not be liable for gross negligence, is certainly void.”25
In practise, with non-liability agreements, an obligor is not liable for any negligence except gross negligence. In such cases, this kind of provision is valid only for the disposal of slight negligence of the obligor. However, it has no effect on liability for gross negligence26.
In Turkish Law, the main reason for not eliminating liability for wilful misconduct and gross negligence is that the principle of negligence is dominated by responsibility in law and the rule pacta sun servanda of contracts law. Parties must fulfil the requirements of the contract that they agreed on. In fact, when parties enter into a contractual relationship, the parties accept this agreement in advance and create a justified trust in each other. The legislator imposes sanctions on any breach of trust between the parties, and in fact the obligor is subject to those sanctions due to his/her responsibility for any resulting damage due to a breach in contractual obligations. This is because the failure, with intent, to fulfil any obligations arising from the contract is not compatible with obligation of loyalty and therefore it is sanctioned27.
Article 115/2 of the TCO
Article 115/2 of the TCO states: “Any prior agreement states that the obligor will not be liable for any of his obligations arising from the service contract with the creditor is certainly void.”
Within the scope of this Article, if there is an obligation due to a service agreement between a creditor and debtor, any contract that eliminates responsibility due to this obligation is considered void. It makes no difference whether the responsibility arises from wilful misconduct, gross negligence or slight negligence28.
However, the above mentioned Article is criticized by some doctrinal opinions. For example, due to the language of the Article, a non-liability agreement accepted by an employer regarding his employee may be void. Moreover, a subject of the Article is the debtor’s “debts arising from service agreements”, which means the Article may also apply to a non-liability agreement made by and between a creditor employer and debtor employee29. In other words, it is not clear from the wording of the article that the creditor is under the service of the debtor, that is, whether a weak employee is protected from a strong employer.
The other critical point is the phrase, “any debt arising from the service contract”. In this situation, a debtor cannot make a non-liability agreement for any debts arising purely from a service relationship. However, he/she can enter into a non-liability agreement for other agreements made with the same employee30.
Considering the purpose and spirit of the Article, it is recommended that only non-liability agreements against an employee need to be deemed void and non-liability agreements against employers need to be deemed valid31.
Another criticism is that the power given to the discretion of judges, provided under Code of Obligation No. 818, to consider whether a non-liability agreement is void is not referred to in Article 115/2 of TCO32. However, Ertaş defends the opposite opinion and argues that there is a positive alteration.33
3. Article 115/3 of the TCO
Article 115/3 of the TCO states that, “a service, profession or art-required speciality, if conducted only with permission of law or a competent authority, an agreement stating that a debtor is not responsible for his/her slight negligence is certainly void”.
Two circumstances are required for the implementation of this Article. The first of these is the presence of a speciality requiring a service, profession or art. The second circumstance is that the specialized activity should be only conducted with the permission of the law or of a competent authority. Both of these circumstances should be present at the same time34. For instance, the medical profession, architecture, teaching profession, banking,35 engineering and advocacy are professions that require speciality and they are conducted by permission of a competent authority. Thus, an agreement that eliminates responsibility from any loss that arises from slight negligence during the implementation of these professions by members of these professions is considered void36.
Some professions create a sense of trust because they are conducted with the permission of the law or of a competent authority. Thus, there is a rightful expectation from society that specialists who conduct these kinds of business carry out their contractual responsibilities parallel to the speciality that is required from their professions. Therefore, implementation of a non-liability agreement’s elimination of responsibility for compensation for these kinds of professions is prevented by law37. It should be noted that Article 115/3 is not valid for all kinds of activity that depends on the permission of the law or of a competent authority. It is only valid for proficiency required services, professions and arts38. For instance, being a taxi driver depends on permission from a competent authority; however, it is not a speciality required business and it is not considered within the scope of Article 115/3 of the TCO.
The purpose of Article 115/3 of the TCO, is to put in place limitations to non-liability agreements made within the scope of freedom of contract. In principle, non-liability agreements are void in the case of gross fault, gross negligence and intention. However, the second and third sub articles of Article 115/3 are exceptions to this rule. Thus, this Article should be evaluated in accordance with the principle that “exceptions are narrowly interpreted”. Therefore, Article 115/3 of the TCO can be implemented for professions that require expertise, and not only for a profession that is carried out with the permission of a competent authority39.
However, the Article is criticised for being extended beyond its purpose to limit non-liability agreements. This criticism argues that the Article is not being applied in accordance with the requirements of commercial affairs. Certainly, it is not right to sustain a non-liability agreement that oppresses the other party to the contract with economic power.
However, nowadays judges should be given the discretion40 to determine the validity of non-liability agreements that include conduct by official permission and speciality required activity, whether they oppress the other party to the contract, where the parties of a contract compromise on more equal ground and are made with regard to loss of goods or activities involving very significant risks. Furthermore, non-liability agreements that are made in a very restricted way in terms of profit loss, loss of property or foreseeable damages during the establishment of the contract will be deemed void under the explicit wording of Article 115/3 of the TCO41.
Another criticism is the use of the term “competent authority” in the Article. If Article 115/3 is interpreted broadly, the term competent authority can also be understood as not only an official authority but also as a private authority. In this situation, almost all professions and arts may be interpreted in accordance with this Article. Therefore, the term “competent authority” should be understood as “official authority”42.
E. The Effects of Invalidity of a Non-Liability Agreement on a Contract
Non-liability agreements that are void in accordance with Article 115 of the TCO are certainly invalid. Conditions that make contracts invalid are incapacity, contrariety of subject of contract to mandatory regulations, public order, public morality, personal rights or contradiction of formation and collusion.43 The results of sanction of invalidity are as follows:44
- The legal transaction has been invalid since it was executed.
- In principle, it is not possible for the invalidity to be resolved later and for the legal transaction to gain validity.
- People whose legal status are affected can make an argumentation based on invalidity.
- Invalidity can not only be alleged against a contrary party but it can also be alleged against everyone.
A judge considers invalidity ex officio.
There are two types of invalidity: complete invalidity and partial invalidity. Partial invalidity is that where some parts of a contract are invalid, only the related parts of the contract become invalid and the other parts of the contract remain valid. According to Article 27/2 of the TCO, invalidity of some parts of a contract does not affect the validity of the other parts. However, if it is clear that the contract cannot remain in force without these provisions, the whole contract is completely invalid45. In this situation, invalidity of a non-liability agreement in a contract according to Article 115 of the TCO does not affect the rest of the contract46. In other words, a malicious debtor cannot claim invalidity of the rest of the contract due to invalidity of the non-liability agreement47.
IV. ELIMINATION OF TORTIOUSLIABILITY WITH NON-LIABILITY AGREEMENTS
law contain the responsibility not to breach contractual liabilities. The possibility of establishing a non-liability agreement in areas of responsibility beyond a contractual basis is controversial. There is a tortious liability in the event of harm caused to other people who do not have a contractual relationship48. A tortious act includes four elements as follows: an illegal act, a fault, damage and the necessary causal link between the damage and the act. It is possible to make non-liability agreements for a tortious act regarding assets49.
However, it is not possible to have non-liability agreements for a tortious act regarding physical integrity50.
Another opinion considers non-liability agreements regarding damage to assets as valid; although non-liability agreements regarding damage to personal rights are considered invalid51.
Another opinion supports non-liability agreements as valid due to freedom of contract without considering any damage occuring to assets or personal rights52.
According to Oğuzman and Öz, if the same act constitutes both, that is, if it is a contradiction of obligations and a tortious act, then a non-liability agreement that is added into the contract in order to limit responsibility is also valid for the tortious act53. Likewise, Tandoğan states that non-liability agreements added into a contract should also be valid for responsibility arising from a tortious act54.
According to Turkish law, non-liability agreements that are made concerning a tortious act for personal rights are invalid due to Article 27 of the TCO and Article 23 of the Turkish Civil Code. In other words, agreements made contrary to Article 23 of the Turkish Civil Code are invalid due to Article 27 of the TCO55.
In situations where both the contractual responsibility and a responsibility of tortious act are implementable, it is accepted that non-liability agreements, which limit or eliminate contractual responsibilities, are valid for responsibilities of tortious act in some cases.
In order to limit responsibility of a tortious act with a non-liability agreement, the tortious act should a slight negligence carried out against an injured party’s assets. Only in this situation are prior non-liability agreements made in order to eliminate contractual responsibility valid for responsibility of a tortious act. It is important that the tortious act is carried out with slight ngeligence against assets56 and not against personal rights,. On the other hand, non-liability agreements that are made in order to eliminate responsibility of a tortious act toward personal assets are invalid according to Article 27 of the TCO, and non-liability agreements that are made for gross negligence or wilful misconduct because of the tortious acts are invalid due to Article 115 of the TCO57.
V. CONSEQUENCESOFANON-LIABILITY AGREEMENT
The obligations that a debtor accepts at the time of fulfilment of obligations are of two types: fundamental obligations (first level obligations, first obligations) and secondary obligations on the debt relationship. Fundamental obligations arise from a contract and determine the legal type of the contract by giving features to the contract. Secondary obligations occur as a result of a debtor’s behaviour contrary to their fundamental liabilities58. Non-liability agreements eliminate the secondary obligation, that is, any compensation that might occur due to a debtor’s behaviour contrary to his/her obligations.
As mentioned above, a debtor’s compensation responsibility is a secondary obligation that arises from nonfulfillment of a fundamental obligation59. Therefore, the subject of a non-liability agreement is not a fundamental obligation of the contract. In other words, responsibility that a non-liability agreement aims to prevent is non-performance of the liabilities but responsibilities that occur in the scope of secondary obligations59. Hence, non-liability agreements do not provide freedom to a debtor to choose whether to fulfil fundamental obligations that arise from a contract60. Parties may agree upon whether one party has the freedom to fulfil his fundamental liability; however, this kind of agreement is not considered a non-liability agreement. In other words, although a non-liability agreement made between parties in favour of a debtor is valid, a debtor has to fulfil his fundamental obligations written in the contract61.
VI. CONCLUSION
Non-liability agreements, that are defined as agreements made explicitly or implicitly between debtor and creditor, prior to damage in result of violation of contract and to prevent completely or partially potential for future compensation demand in favour of creditor, independently or as an addendum of a contract. Parties may make a contract as they wish within the scope of freedom of contract. However, with Article 115 of the TCO, a lawmaker restricts that freedom. In principle, the first sub article of the relevant regulations provides that the making such an agreement is limited to a debtor’s slight negligence. In other words, a lawmaker regulates that the agreements made to free a debtor from his liability of gross negligence are invalid.
The second and third sub articles of Article 115 of the TCO regulate the exceptions to this rule. According to the second sub article, if there is a service contract between parties, an agreement that states a debtor will not be liable even for slight negligence is invalid. Although the mentioned Article is criticised for several reasons, the aim of the lawmaker is to protect the employee, who is the weaker party.
The third sub article of the same Article regulates the invalidity of agreements based on a debtor’s non-liability in event of an activity conducted by permission of a competent authority and requiring proficiency.
According to Article 27/2 of the TCO, invalidity of a non-liability agreement does not invalidate the whole contract.
In the case of a breach of contractual responsibility, if that responsibility also constitutes responsibility in tort, there is an opinion from doctrine that a non-liability agreement made between parties is also valid for a liability that has occurred due to a tortious act.
Finally, an agreement made between parties regulating the fulfilment of fundamental liabilities of a contract is not considered a non-liability agreement. A non-liability agreement is an agreement that limits a debtor’s secondary liability to reimbursement of a creditors’ loss as a result of a debtor’s breach of his/her fundamental liabilities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BAŞALP NILGÜN, Sorumsuzluk Anlaşmaları, İstanbul, 2011.
EREN FIKRET, Borçlar Hukuku: Genel Hükümler, 14th Edition, Ankara 2012.
ERTAŞ, ŞEREF, Marmara Üniversitesi, Prof. Dr. Cevdet Yavuz’a Armağan, Borçların İfası ile İlgili Yeni Borçlar Kanununun Değerlendirilmesi.
KILIÇOĞLU AHMET, Borçlar Hukuku: Genel Hükümler, 17th Edition, Ankara, 2013.
MERAL ÖMER OĞUZHAN, “Türk Borçlar Kanunu ve Türk Medeni Kanunu Kapsamında Sorumsuzluk Anlaşmalarının Geçersizliği”, D.E.Ü. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Şeref Ertaş’a Armağan, C.19, Özel Sayı-2017.
OĞUZMAN KEMAL, – Öz Turgut, Borçlar Hukuk: Genel Hükümler, Vol: 1, İstanbul, 2011.
OĞUZMAN KEMAL, – Öz Turgut, Borçlar Hukuk: Genel Hükümler, Vol: 2, İstanbul, 2011.
TANDOĞAN HALUK, Türk Mesuliyet Hukuku, İstanbul, 2011.
TEKELIOĞLU NUMAN, Sorumsuzluk Anlaşmalarına İlişkin Bir Yargıtay Kararı İncelemesi, SDÜHFD Vol: 6 No: 1-2, 2016.
FOOTNOTE
1 Kılıçoğlu Ahmet, Borçlar Hukuku: Genel Hükümler, 17th Edition, Ankara, 2013, s. 306.
2 Eren Fikret, Borçlar Hukuku: Genel Hükümler, 14th Edition, Ankara, 2012, p. 570.
3 Başalp Nilgün, Sorumsuzluk Anlaşmaları, İstanbul, 2011, p. 214.
4 Meral Ömer Oğuzhan, “Türk Borçlar Kanunu ve Türk Medeni Kanunu Kapsamında Sorumsuzluk Anlaşmalarının Geçersizliği”, D.E.Ü. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Şeref Ertaş’a Armağan, C.19, Özel Sayı-2017, p. 1161; Oğuzman Kemal, – Öz Turgut, Borçlar Hukuk: Genel Hükümler, Cilt 1, İstanbul, 2011, p. 472. 5 Başalp, p. 214.
6 Başalp, p. 215.
7 Başalp, p. 215.
8 Tekelioğlu Numan, Sorumsuzluk Anlaşmalarına İlişkin Bir Yargıtay Kararı İncelemesi, SDÜHFD Cilt 6 Sayı 1-2, 2016, p. 3; Eren, p. 490; Kılıçoğlu, p. 30-31.
9 Tekelioğlu, p. 4; Eren, p. 490; Kılıçoğlu, p. 30-31.
10 Tekelioğlu, s. 4; Meral, 1144; Fikret Eren, s. 1085; Oğuzman – Öz, p. 476; Tandoğan Haluk, Türk Mesuliyet Hukuku, İstanbul, 2011, p. 454.
11 Tekelioğlu, p. 5; Eren, p. 1086.
12 Tekelioğlu, p. 5.
13 Tekelioğlu, p. 6; Meral, 1145; Eren, p. 1087.
14 Meral, 1146.
15 Tekelioğlu, p. 9; Meral, 1159; Eren, p. 1087; Oğuzman – Öz, p. 477; Kılıçoğlu, p. 653; Tandoğan, p. 454.
16 Kılıçoğlu, p. 653.
17 Eren, p. 1087.
18 Meral, 1153; Eren, p. 1086.
19 Başalp, p. 180.
20 Kılıçoğlu, p. 653.
21 Başalp, p. 191-192.
22 Başalp, p. 191-192.
23 Başalp, p. 191-192.
24 Başalp, p. 186-188; Meral, 1170; Eren, p. 1088; Oğuzman-Öz, p. 477; Kılıçoğlu, p. 310, 654-655.
25 Tekelioğlu, p. 12; Oğuzman-Öz, p. 478; Yargıtay 3. H.D., 06.07.2017, E. 2017/1904, K. 2017/11181.
26 Oğuzman-Öz, p. 478; Tandoğan, p. 456; Yargıtay 15. H.D., T. 30.11.2015, E. 2015/4076, K. 2015/6084; Yargıtay 11. H.D., T. 21.06.2013, E. 2011/11607, K. 2013/13004.
27 Başalp, p. 452.
28 Tekelioğlu, p.13; Meral, 1171; Yargıtay 15. H.D., T. 24.10.2013, E. 2012/7514, K.2013/5762.
29 Başalp, p.189. Tekelioğlu, p.13; Meral, 1189; Oğuzman-Öz, p.479-480.
30 Başalp, p.190.
31 Tekelioğlu, p.13. Başalp, p.368; Meral, 1189.
32 Başalp, p.188.
33 Ertaş, Şeref, Marmara Üniversitesi, Prof. Dr. Cevdet Yavuz’a Armağan, Borçların İfası ile İlgili Yeni Borçlar Kanununun Değerlendirilmesi, p.323.
34 Tekelioğlu, p. 14; Meral, 1163; Oğuzman-Öz, p. 480-481.
35 Yargıtay, 11.H.D., T.27.01.2016, E. 2015/10105, K. 2016/901.
36 Meral, 1198; Oğuzman-Öz, p.480- 481; Kılıçoğlu, p.658.
37 Başalp, p.455.
38 Başalp, p.190; Meral, 1172.
39 Meral, 1172-1173.
40 Ertaş, p. 323.
41 Başalp, p. 456.
42 Tekelioğlu, p. 15; Ertaş, s.308.
43 Tekelioğlu, p.17; Kılıçoğlu, p. 89; Oğuzman-Öz, p. 185; Eren, p. 333-334.
44 Tekelioğlu, p.18; Başalp, p. 384; Kılıçoğlu, p. 89-90; Oğuzman-Öz, p.186; Eren, p. 333-334.
45 Meral , 1184-1185; Eren, p. 336-337; Oğuzman-Öz, p.190-191; Kılıçoğlu p. 102-103.
46 Tekelioğlu, p.18; Eren, p.1088; Oğuzman-Öz p. 478.
47 Tandoğan, p. 456.
48 Meral, 1164.
49 Eren, 516; Kılıçoğlu, p. 273; Oğuzman-Öz, Cilt-2, p.12.
50 Meral, 1164.
51 Meral, 1164; Eren, p. 605.
52 Meral, 1164.
53 Oğuzman-Öz, p. 505
54 Tandoğan, p. 538.
55 Meral, 1165; Eren, 603, 605.
56 Eren, p. 605.
57 Meral, 1166.
58 Meral, 1144.
59 Tekelioğlu, p.23; Meral, 1145.
60 Başalp, p.122.
61 Tekelioğlu, p.23; Meral, 1145.
