ABSTRACT
A letter of guarantee is an institution for the commitment of a third person’s performance involving three parties: guarantor (bank), warrantee, and beneficiary of the guarantee (beneficiary). In situations where the warrantee requests payment of the guaranteed amount from the bank, it is of importance whether such a demand constitutes an abuse of right or not. In cases where the request for payment is “unjust”, the beneficiary or third parties whose rights will be infringed upon, may request an interim injunction issued by the court, in order to prevent the bank from effecting the payment. In this article, the interim injunction with regard to letters of guarantee will be examined.
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the letter of guarantee is independent of the main relationship between the beneficiary and the warrantee and is a contract between the bank and the warrantee, it has remained an issue of discussion in the legal doctrine whether the beneficiary can request an interim injunction in order to prevent the bank from effecting payment to the warrantee1. However, the predominant view in the doctrine is that the beneficiary may demand an interim injunction if certain conditions exist2. As a matter of fact, Court of Appeals case law states that, if it is held that the payment request of the warrantee is an abuse of rights within the scope of the base relationship between the beneficiary and the warrantee or if it is contrary to the purpose, the independence of the bank guarantee is not contradicted3 and therefore it is possible to resort to an interim injunction4.
There are some exceptions regulated in the legislation regarding the provision of an interim injunction, and under Article 26 of State Tender Law no. 2886 and Article 34 of Public Tender Law no. 4734 it is regulated that an interim injunction cannot be issued on guarantees received by the administration. Because of the broad statements used in both Laws, it is argued that an interim injunction cannot be issued with respect to all letters of guarantee which are addressed to the administration5. However, it should be noted that the nonissuance of an interim injunction is a matter concerning the beneficiary, not the bank. In this respect, although the beneficiary cannot prevent the bank from effecting payment regarding the guarantees that are addressed to the administration, the bank has the right to reject such a payment request, upon determining that the payment request by the administration is an abuse of rights6.
This article primarily examines the conditions and procedure of an interim injunction with regard to letters of guarantee, and the annulment or amendment of such injunction with respect to interim injunctions in terms of letters of guarantee.
II. CONDITIONS OF AN INTERIM INJUNCTION ON LETTERS OF GUARANTEE
In order to request an interim injunction from the court, the person requesting the interim injunction must first have ‘interest’. In the absence of an interest or right that needs to be protected by an injuction, no interim injunction is required7.
For example, in the event of a request for a payment contrary to the purpose of the guarantee or by abuse of rights, the were the bank to pay the guarantee amount, there would be a risk of harm to the beneficiary. Where that such harm is imminent, the beneficiary is deemed to have an interest worthy of legal protection8.
In order to file an interim injunction that imposes a payment ban on the bank, the payment request of the warrantee must be made through an abuse of right, in addition to the presence of an interest9. However, in order for the injunction to be issued on the basis of abuse of rights, hard evidence regarding such an abuse must be submitted to the court. In other words, an interim injunction can be issued if evidence forming a definite opinion that the claim for payment constitutes an abuse of right is presented10.
While there must be evidence and motives to convince a judge to award an interim injunction, it is accepted that the bank is obliged to refuse to pay irrespective of whether there is an interim injunction with hard evidence relating to a risk if that risk has not yet arisen or has passed11.
What is clear here is that the court has to issue an interim injunction if it is proved by hard evidence that there is a risk secured by the letter of guarantee even if that risk has not yet materialized.
III. INTERIM INJUNCTION REQUEST WITH RESPECT TO LETTERS OF GUARANTEE
Interim injunction requests with respect to letters of guarantee are made by the beneficiary and there are two types of such requests: those made to the bank and those made to the warrantee. The beneficiary may request that the court award an interim injunction which constitutes a “prohibition of payment” against the bank or “prohibition of request” against the warrantee.
A. Interim Injunction Request Against the Bank
The doctrine discusses whether the beneficiary can request an interim injunction in order to prevent the bank that receives an unjust payment request from the warrantee from paying the guaranteed amount12. This discussion stems from the legal nature of the letter of guarantee. With regard to letters of guarantee that act as the commitment of a third person’s performance, the main relationship between the beneficiary and the warrantee is independent of the letter of guarantee relationship between the bank and the warrantee. On the other hand, the opinion that is predominant in the doctrine and is applied in practice is that although an independent relationship is envisaged, the beneficiary may request an interim injunction13. Accordingly, it is claimed that an interim injunction shall not impair the independence of letter of guarantee contracts. The basis for this claim is that the bank is responsible for the damages incurred by the third party and has an obligation to protect the beneficiary.
The bank is obliged not to make any payment to the warrantee if the bank knows that the payment request is unjust and constitutes an abuse of rights. The Court of Appeals takes a stand on the opinion that a bank that knows the warrantee’s demand is unjustified should not make the payment to the warrantee14. The bank will be liable for breach of its contract with the beneficiary if it makes the payment knowing that the payment request is unfair15. Because, in the letter of guarantee contracts, a bank making a payment despite the warrantee’s unfair payment request will harm the beneficiary who is a third party to the contract will have to cover the losses incurred by the beneficiary. In this case, the beneficiary should be allowed to file an interim injunction against the bank in order to prevent unjust payment requests, even though it is not a party to the letter of guarantee16. However, as agreed in the doctrine17, in order for the beneficiary to prevent the bank from effecting payment by means of an interim injunction, it must certainly be proved by hard evidence that the warrantee’s request for payment constitutes an abuse of rights. The Court of Appeals has rendered decisions stating this18.
On the other hand, within the scope of the relationship between the bank and the beneficiary of the letter of guarantee, the bank has secondary obligations as well as principal obligations arising from this relationship, and one of these secondary obligations is the obligation to protect the beneficiary19. In this respect, the bank is obliged to refrain from effecting payment if the warrantee’s payment request is found to be unlawful and constitutes an abuse of rights. In addition, the bank should refrain from effecting payment if it is determined that the request for payment constitutes an abuse of rights through the beneficiary obtaining an interim injunction20.
B. Interim Injunction Request Against the Warrantee
In addition to having an interim injunction issued against the bank, it is also possible to prevent the bank from making the payment to the warrantee by having an interim injunction, which constitutes a prohibition of request issued against the warrantee. In the event that the conditions for the payment of the letter of guarantee stipulated in the contract between the beneficiary and the warrantee have not been fulfilled, the court may issue an interim injunction against the warrantee not to request a payment; however, in order to have such an injunction issued, as mentioned above, it should be proved by hard evidence that the claimant's request for payment constitutes an abuse of rights and it is necessary for the beneficiary to have a legal interest in having an injunction issued21.
If the warrantee requests payment even though an interim injunction constituting a prohibition of request is issued against him by the court, there are two ways that the bank can follow depending on whether the relevant injunction has been notified to it or not. The bank will refrain from effecting the payment if it knows that the payment request of the warrantee is in the nature of an abuse of rights on the basis of hard evidence if the relevant injunction had been made but has not been notified to bank; however, if the bank decides that the request for payment meets the stipulated conditions, it will make the payment to the warrantee22. An interim injunction that has not been conveyed to the bank will not bind it. In this respect, the beneficiary should convey this interim injunction to the bank as soon as possible. In the event that the beneficiary conveys the injunction issued by the court to the bank, the bank will know for certain that the risk guaranteed by the letter of guarantee has not arisen, and will be obliged to refrain from effecting payment to the warrantee23.
On the other hand, the bank will be liable to the beneficiary if it renders payment to the warrantee despite the fact that the interim injunction constituting a prohibition of request is notified to it. The warrantee will be liable both for opposition to the court decision and for noncompliance with its contractual relationship with the beneficiary24.
Interim injunction requests with respect to letters of guarantee are made by the beneficiary and there are two types of such requests: those made to the bank and those made to the warrantee. The beneficiary may request that the court award an interim injunction which constitutes a “prohibition of payment” against the bank or “prohibition of request” against the warrantee.
IV. NOTIFICATION OF INTERIM INJUNCTION ON LETTERS OF GUARANTEE
In terms of the actions that the bank can take against the received payment request, the determining factor is the timing of the notification of an interim injunction concerning a letter of guarantee. In this respect, it is important whether the interim injunction was notified before the request for payment, or after the request for payment but before the payment.
A. Notification of Interim Injunction Before the Payment Request
In the event that an interim injunction is issued against the bank, the bank is obliged to implement the relevant interim injunction. In this respect, if the bank disregards an interim injunction notified to it and effects payment to the warrantee, it will be liable for opposition to the injunction and will not have a right of recourse to the beneficiary for this payment.
In the event that an interim injunction is issued against the warrantee, the warrantee should not make any request for payment; and the bank should not make payment to the warrantee if the relevant injunction has been notified to it. The warrantee who fails to comply with the interim injunction shall be liable for his request.
In the event that there is no interim injunction notified to the bank despite the existence of an interim injunction constituting a prohibition of demand against the warrantee, the bank is required to make the payment requested by the warrantee25. However, if the beneficiary notifies the bank of the relevant injunction, the bank will be required not to pay the warrantee since the payment request of the warrantee will constitute an abuse of rights.
In this respect, if the interim injunction is notified to the bank before the warrantee requests payment, the bank must reject the request upon receiving it based on the interim injunction.
B. Notification of the Interim Injunction After the Payment Request but Before the Payment
An interim injunction to be notified after the bank has paid to the warrantee regarding the letter of guarantee shall not have any effect on the bank. The issues that need to be emphasized here are what the bank should do when the interim injunction is notified to the bank during the assessment of the request for payment and within what period of time it should carry out this assessment.
Although there is uncertainty in the legal doctrine as to what the bank's review period should be, it is suggested that the examination should be carried out within a “reasonable period of time” and that in letters of guarantee involving the record of “payable upon first request”, the bank should complete the examination immediately unless a document other than a written request is required26. With regard to letters of guarantee, banks undertake to pay legal interest for the period from the first written request to the payment date27. In the event that the bank is late in fulfilling the compensation request and an interim injunction is issued and notified to the bank in the meantime, the bank shall pay default interest only for the period until the notification of the interim injunction. As for the period after the notification of such injunction, the bank shall not pay default interest, since the bank’s default ends with the notification28.
There is no certainty as to what should be a reasonable period of time required for the bank to carry out its assessment. With respect to letters of guarantee having the record of payable upon first request, the bank’s duty of assessment is limited in terms of time. In such cases, the assessment shall be carried out within a day following the day of the request. The bank has a duty to examine carefully conditional letters of guarantee or letters of guarantee subject to the necessity of submission of a certain document. However, the said period cannot be interpreted broadly, and it is suggested that it will be plausible to make payment within three days29.
In the event that the bank makes payment in excess of a reasonable period of time, it shall pay interest for the period between the request and the date of payment, with regard to its commitment in the letters of guarantee. In addition, it is necessary to examine cases when the bank exceeds the reasonable time to make payment and the interim injunction is submitted to the bank to prevent a payment. As a matter of fact, if the beneficiary is found to be at fault in the case to be filed following the injunction, the bank will have caused the warrantee to receive the payment late by exceeding the reasonable time. In this respect, the beneficiary will be obliged to pay interest to the warrantee for the period from the payment request to the actual payment date, as he will have caused a loss for the warrantee. Of course, if the beneficiary is proved right in the relevant case, there will be no interest to be paid by the bank30.
In terms of the actions that the bank can take against the received payment request, the determining factor is the timing of the notification of an interim injunction concerning a letter of guarantee. In this respect, it is important whether the interim injunction was notified before the request for payment, or after the request for payment but before the payment.
V. ANNULMENT OR AMENDMENT OF INTERIM INJUNCTION ON LETTERS OF GUARANTEE
An interim injunction on a letter of guarantee can be annulled or amended. One of the main points to be considered in this regard is that neither the interim injunction nor the court's decision on the request for interim injunction can be made subject to right to appeal. However, the person against whom the injunction has been issued may request the “annulment” or “amendment of the interim injunction”. However, these requests do not apply to both types of interim injunction. It is stipulated in the interim injunction constituting a prohibition of request that the warrantee may benefit from the opportunities of annulment and amendment of the injunction. On the other hand, in the event that an interim injunction in the form of a “prohibition of payment” is issued, the issue of whether the warrantee will benefit from these pportunities comes to the fore. Regarding this issue, attention should primarily be paid where although the decision is a direct decision taken against the bank, it in fact prevents the warrantee from collecting the guaranteed amount. In addition, it should be taken into consideration that the person who would like to benefit from the interim injunction and the respondent of the case to be filed after the injunction is the warrantee instead of the bank. In the light of these grounds, it is argued that even if an interim injunction in the form of a prohibition of payment is issued, the warrantee may request that the interim injunction be annulled or amended31.
In the event that the interim injunction is annuled, the warrantee may have recourse to a beneficiary who has wrongly had an interim injunction issued for the interest that he has failed to recieve and any losses incurred by him during the period that the interim injenction was in effect.
Appeal procedure is provided for annulment or amendment of the interim injunction. Pursuant to Article 394/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), if an interim injunction is issued without a party being heard, the person against whom the interim injunction has been issued may appeal against the decision. However, an appeal does not stop this being executed unless otherwise decided. In the second paragraph of the same Article, it is stipulated that it can be objected to the court who has issued the injunction with regard to “conditions of the interim injunction”, “the authority of the court” and “the guarantee” right after the injunction is executed if the counterparty appears during the implementation of the interim injunction, and within one week following the notification of the proceedings of application of the injunction if the counterparty does not appear. With the third paragraph of the Article, “third parties” whose interests have been explicitly violated due to the application of the interim injunction are granted the right to object and such persons may object to the conditions of the interim injunction and the guarantee within “one week” from having learned about the interim injunction. The fifth paragraph of the same Article stipulates that a decision given on the objection may also be appealed; however, the application of the remedy would not stop the implementation of the injunction.
In the event of annulment of the interim injunction, the legislator provides a separate condition for the interim injunctions issued before the case on the merits is filed. Pursuant to Article 397/1 of CCP, if the interim injunction is issued before the case on merit is filed, the requester of the injunction is obliged to file the case on merit within two weeks from the date on which it requests the application of this injunction. Otherwise, the injunction shall automatically be void.
In addition, Article 397/2 of the CCP stipulates that the effect of the interim injunction shall continue until the finalization of the final decision, unless otherwise stated. In this respect, with the finalization of the final decision on merit, the interim injunction shall automatically be removed. In addition, it is possible to annul or amend the interim injunction by providing security. As per Article 395/1 of the CCP, if the person against whom an interim injunction is issued or executed provides the amount of security that would be accepted by the court, the court may decide to annul or amend the injunction according to circumstances. The second paragraph of the same Article state that the amount of security shall be determined depending on whether an amendment or an annulment is requested, and the type of security shall be determined in accordance with Article 87 of the CCP, therefore if the parties have agreed on the form of the security by contract, the security shall be determined accordingly. Otherwise, the judge shall determine the form of the guarantee without constraint. Pursuant to the third paragraph of the relevant Article, Article 394 of the CCP shall be applied by analogy, and third parties whose interests are clearly violated due to the implementation of the interim injunction shall also be entitled to request annulment or amendment of the interim injunction through providing security under this Article.
Annulment of an interim injunction may also be requested in the event of a change in circumstances and conditions. Pursuant to Article 396/1 of the CCP, if it is established that the circumstances and conditions have changed, it may be decided to amend or annul the interim injunction upon request without seeking for security. It is also recognized by the Court of Appeals that where the circumstances and conditions change, objection will be possible again; however, the objection shall not be made with regard to an interim injunction, which has not seen a change in circumstances or conditions and has already been made a subject of objection and has been sued32. On the other hand, pursuant to the second paragraph of the same Article, Article 394 of the CCP shall be applied by analogy, and in this respect, when it is established that the circumstances and conditions have changed and third parties whose interests are clearly violated due to the impelementation of the interim injunction have made a request, it may be decided without seeking security that such interim injunction be annulled or amended.
Lastly, the Court of Appeals has rendered decisions pointing out that the amount of remittance to the bankcruptcy office can be regarded as annulment or amendment of an interim injunction, even if it is not explicitly requested to annul or amend the interim injunction33.
VI. PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF AN INTERIM INJUNCTION ON LETTERS OF GUARANTEE
In the event that an interim injunction issued upon request of the beneficiary turns out to be unjust, the warrantee or third parties may claim against the beneficiary the damages incurred due to the interim injunction34. In the event that the security that the beneficiary has to deposit when requesting an injunction does not recompense such damages or is not deposited at all, a request may be made and a case may be filed for compensation for uncovered damages35.
In order to be able to claim compensation based on the unfairness of the interim injunction and if the injunction has been executed, it must be understood that such an injunction is unjust and there needs to be an appropriate causal relation between the damage caused by such unfairness and the interim injunction36.
In addition, in the event that the bank delays meeting the payment request of the warrantee, it is possible for the beneficiary to stop the payment by having an interim injunction during this period and the bank will be liable to pay interest to the warrantee for the period up to the date the interim injunction is issued37.
The beneficiary is required to file his case on merit within two weeks from the date on which he requests the application of the interim injunction and submit the documents indicating that he has filed the case to the officer applying the decision, and receive a document in return38. Otherwise, the relevant interim injunction shall automatically be void as mentioned above. The situation mentioned in the relevant Article, with regard to letters of guarantee, shall also apply to interim injunctions issued in order to prevent the bank from effecting payment to the warrantee39.
The effect of the interim injunction on the maturity of the letter of guarantee can be examined in two parts. In interim injunctions constituting a prohibition of payment, in the event that the risk secured by the letter of guarantee is materialized and a payment request is made to the bank within the maturity period, the liability of the bank will continue even if the bank has not paid to the warrantee based on the interim injunction. Even though the maturity is over, the liability of the bank will continue until the case on merit is concluded40. If the case is concluded in favor of the warrantee, the bank shall have the duty to effect payment to the warrantee despite being over due.
It is important to note here that due to the existence of an interim injunction constituting a prohibition of payment, if the warrantee does not make a payment request, the liability of the bank shall end at the maturity date since the warrantee cannot know that the risk has occurred within the maturity period41. In this respect, for the continuance of the bank’s responsibility, it will be important that warrantee makes payment request even if its request shall not be met.
In the event that the interim injunction is terminated before the letter of guarantee expires, the warrantee may claim compensation until the maturity date, but cannot request payment after the maturity date42.
As for the interim injunctions constituting a prohibition of request, if the interim injunction is notified to the bank, the liability of the bank continues until the final decision on merit is given, even if maturity ends. If the relevant injunction has not been notified to the bank, the responsibility of the bank ceases with the expiration of maturity43.
Moreover, in Article 398 of the CCP, it is regulated that any person who fails to comply with or acts contrary to the interim injunction shall be sentenced to disciplinary imprisonment between one and six months. In this respect, those who do not comply with the relevant injunction will face punitive sanctions. Furthermore, in practice, the consent of the beneficiary regarding the compensation of the letter while the injunction is in progress does not negate the contradiction to Article 398 of the CCP, even if it allows the bank to recourse to the beneficiary for the relevant payment44.
VII. CONCLUSION
This article examines the legal nature and consequences of interim injunctions on letters of guarantee. Accordingly, the beneficiary or a third party who has an interest may request an interim injunction and request interim injunctions consituting a prohibition of payment or a prohibition of request. In order for an interim injunction to be issued, the payment request must constitute an “abuse of rights” and this situation must be proved with hard evidence. The bank should refrain from making payment if notified of an interim injunction or if it reaches the conclusion that the warrantee’s payment request constitutes an abuse of rights. If the payment is effected in spite of an unjust payment request, the bank may face punitive sanctions and will also be liable for any damages incurred by the beneficiary due to such payment. In the event that the existence of an interim injunction has not been notified to the bank, the bank is not liable for payment to the warrantee unless it is convinced that the request for payment is unjust as a result of its examination. In the event that the relevant injunction is notified after the request for payment but before the payment is made, the bank's liability depends on the reasonable examination period of the bank and depending on the result of the case filed by the beneficiary.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CANBOLAT, FERHAT, “Banka Garantisinde Savunma İmkanları ve İhtiyati Tedbirler”, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara 2008.
COŞKUN, HİLAL, “Banka Teminat Mektuplarında İlgililerin Hak ve Borçları”, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Marmara University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul 2012.
DOĞAN, ELİF, “Türk Hukuk Sisteminde Banka Teminat Mektupları”, Unpublished Postgraduate Thesis, Bahçeşehir University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul 2010.
DOĞAN, VAHİT, Teminat Mektupları, (Ankara: Savaş Yayınevi, 2015)
DURMAZ, BORA, Banka Teminat Mektuplarının Ödeme İstemiyle İbrazı. (İstanbul: Legal Yayıncılık, 2016)
REİSOĞLU, SEZA, Banka Teminat Mektupları ve Kontrgarantiler. (Ankara: 2003)
YÜCEL, MÜJGAN TUNÇ, “Banka Teminat Mektuplarının İhtiyati Tedbire Konu Olması Üzerine Medeni Usul Hukuku Bakış Açısından Bir İnceleme”, Bahçeşehir Hukuk Dergisi, İstanbul 2013, Vol: 8, No: 107-108. YARGITAY KARARLARI Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 07.11.1983, E. 1983/4883, K. 1983/4828 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 13.7.2006, E. 2006/5589, K. 2006/8345 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 25.10.2010, E. 2009/3511, K. 2010/10747 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 28.06.2012, E. 2012/7898, K. 2012/11432 Court of Appeals, 17th Civil Chamber, T. 18.06.2013, E. 2013/6689, K. 2013/9291 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 17.10.2014, E. 2013/11660, K. 2014/15876.
FOOTNOTE
1 Ferhat CANBOLAT, “Banka Garantisinde Savunma İmkanları ve İhtiyati Tedbirler”, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara 2008, p. 295.
2 Müjgan TUNÇ YÜCEL, “Banka Teminat Mektuplarının İhtiyati Tedbire Konu Olması Üzerine Medeni Usul Hukuku Bakış Açısından Bir İnceleme”, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2013, Vol: 8, No: 107-108, p. 7-24
3 CANBOLAT, p. 295.
4 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 07.11.1983, E. 1983/4883, K. 1983/4828, naklen Seza REİSOĞLU, Banka Teminat Mektupları ve Kontrgarantiler, (Ankara: 2003), p. 57.
5 REİSOĞLU, p. 318.
6 Elif DOĞAN, “Türk Hukuk Sisteminde Banka Teminat Mektupları”, Unpublished Postgraduate Thesis, Bahçeşehir University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul 2010, p. 128 (Banka Teminat Mektupları).
7 Vahit DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, (Ankara: Savaş Yayınevi, 2015), p. 360 (Teminat Mektupları).
8 CANBOLAT, p. 302.
9 DOĞAN, Banka Teminat Mektupları, p. 120.
10 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 361.
11 REİSOĞLU, p. 304.
12 CANBOLAT, p. 295.
13 TUNÇ YÜCEL, p. 7-24
14 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 17.10.2014, E. 2013/11660, K. 2014/15876.
15 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 360.
16 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 364.
17 TUNÇ YÜCEL, p. 7-24
18 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 25.10.2010, E. 2009/3511, K. 2010/10747, Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 13.7.2006, E. 2006/5589, K. 2006/8345.
19 CANBOLAT, p. 297.
20 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 366.
21 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, 25.10.2010 T., 2009/3511 E., 2010/10747 K., Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, 13.7.2006 T., 2006/5589 E. 2006/8345 K.
22 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 372.
23 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 373.
24 CANBOLAT, p. 311.
25 Bora DURMAZ, Banka Teminat Mektuplarının Ödeme İstemiyle İbrazı, (İstanbul: Legal Yayıncılık, 2016), p. 234.
26 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 412-414.
27 REİSOĞLU, p. 258.
28 REİSOĞLU, p. 316.
29 DURMAZ, p. 241.
30 DURMAZ, p. 241.
31 CANBOLAT, p. 322.
32 Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, T. 28.06.2012, E. 2012/7898, K. 2012/11432.
33 Court of Appeals, 17th Civil Chamber, T. 18.06.2013, E. 2013/6689, K. 2013/9291.
34 Article 392 of CCP.
35 Hilal COŞKUN, “Banka Teminat Mektuplarında İlgililerin Hak ve Borçları” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Marmara University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul 2012, p. 235.
36 DOĞAN, Banka Teminat Mektupları, p. 127.
37 COŞKUN, p. 234.
38 Article 397/1 of CCP.
39 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 395.
40 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 396.
41 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 396.
42 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 397.
43 DOĞAN, Teminat Mektupları, p. 397.
44 REİSOĞLU, p. 316.
