Some Issues and Opinions Concerning Commencement of Presentation and Statute of Limitations Period «on Sight» Promissory Notes

Tamer Bozkurt

Article Details

Some Issues and Opinions Concerning Commencement of Presentation and Statute of Limitations Period «on Sight» Promissory Notes

Authors:

Tamer Bozkurt

Publisher:

Anadolu University

Main Topics:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Journal:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 2, pp.439-457

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

1/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001324231

pISSN:

2687-394X

Keywords:

Abstract:

 Each promissory note and bill of exchange not bearing maturity provision is deemed to be sight TCC Art. 7772. Such a bill of exchangepromissory note must be presented to the drawerthe acceptor within one year following its issuance date in order to be paid TCC Art. 704. Otherwise, all rights of recourse shall be forfeited TCC Art. 7301-a. The maturity at sight promissory notes arises by means of presentation. The statute of limitation period of three years shall start to run from this moment. However, in case where a promissory note is not presented to be paid within one year, the appearance of the bill, therefore the debts becoming due; and then for the commencement of the statute of limitation period of three years for the main debtor will not be possible. Exactly at this point, at the doctrine and jurisdiction practice it is argued that at such a promissory note the statute of limitation period of three years will commence with the expiration of the presentation term of one year and the last day of one year is almost considered as maturity. Behind this point of view the provision of TCC Art. 705 to be applied to a specified after sight bill of exchange and promissory notes is applied by analogy; it is expressed that the last day of a year shall be considered as appearance date. In the Turkish, German and Swiss doctrine, it is stated that there is a gap in the law on the subject, and some authors consider the expiry of the one-year period to be equivalent to the expiry of the term. Firstly, it is necessary to examine whether there is a legal gap in this issue, and if there is, whether this gap can be filled by analogy. Otherwise, it is also worth analyzing whether the failure to present the document, which may be considered as a burden for the bearer who has exceeded the one-year presentation period, will lead to a loss of right for the bearer, and the status of the universal legal principle that no one can claim a right based on his own fault in the face of the issue.

 Each promissory note and bill of exchange not bearing maturity provision is deemed to be sight TCC Art. 7772. Such a bill of exchangepromissory note must be presented to the drawerthe acceptor within one year following its issuance date in order to be paid TCC Art. 704. Otherwise, all rights of recourse shall be forfeited TCC Art. 7301-a. The maturity at sight promissory notes arises by means of presentation. The statute of limitation period of three years shall start to run from this moment. However, in case where a promissory note is not presented to be paid within one year, the appearance of the bill, therefore the debts becoming due; and then for the commencement of the statute of limitation period of three years for the main debtor will not be possible. Exactly at this point, at the doctrine and jurisdiction practice it is argued that at such a promissory note the statute of limitation period of three years will commence with the expiration of the presentation term of one year and the last day of one year is almost considered as maturity. Behind this point of view the provision of TCC Art. 705 to be applied to a specified after sight bill of exchange and promissory notes is applied by analogy; it is expressed that the last day of a year shall be considered as appearance date. In the Turkish, German and Swiss doctrine, it is stated that there is a gap in the law on the subject, and some authors consider the expiry of the one-year period to be equivalent to the expiry of the term. Firstly, it is necessary to examine whether there is a legal gap in this issue, and if there is, whether this gap can be filled by analogy. Otherwise, it is also worth analyzing whether the failure to present the document, which may be considered as a burden for the bearer who has exceeded the one-year presentation period, will lead to a loss of right for the bearer, and the status of the universal legal principle that no one can claim a right based on his own fault in the face of the issue.

 Each promissory note and bill of exchange not bearing maturity provision is deemed to be sight TCC Art. 7772. Such a bill of exchangepromissory note must be presented to the drawerthe acceptor within one year following its issuance date in order to be paid TCC Art. 704. Otherwise, all rights of recourse shall be forfeited TCC Art. 7301-a. The maturity at sight promissory notes arises by means of presentation. The statute of limitation period of three years shall start to run from this moment. However, in case where a promissory note is not presented to be paid within one year, the appearance of the bill, therefore the debts becoming due; and then for the commencement of the statute of limitation period of three years for the main debtor will not be possible. Exactly at this point, at the doctrine and jurisdiction practice it is argued that at such a promissory note the statute of limitation period of three years will commence with the expiration of the presentation term of one year and the last day of one year is almost considered as maturity. Behind this point of view the provision of TCC Art. 705 to be applied to a specified after sight bill of exchange and promissory notes is applied by analogy; it is expressed that the last day of a year shall be considered as appearance date. In the Turkish, German and Swiss doctrine, it is stated that there is a gap in the law on the subject, and some authors consider the expiry of the one-year period to be equivalent to the expiry of the term. Firstly, it is necessary to examine whether there is a legal gap in this issue, and if there is, whether this gap can be filled by analogy. Otherwise, it is also worth analyzing whether the failure to present the document, which may be considered as a burden for the bearer who has exceeded the one-year presentation period, will lead to a loss of right for the bearer, and the status of the universal legal principle that no one can claim a right based on his own fault in the face of the issue.

 Vade kaydı taşımayan her bono ve poliçe görüldüğünde ödenecek sayılır TTK m. 7772. Bu tür bir bono poliçenin, düzenleme tarihinden itibaren bir yıl içinde düzenleyene veya kabul eden muhataba ödenmek üzere ibraz edilmesi gerekir TTK m. 704. Aksi takdirde tüm başvuru hakları düşer TTK m. 7301-a. Görüldüğünde ödenecek bonolarda vade ibraz sayesinde ortaya çıkmakta, bu andan itibaren de üç yıllık zamanaşımı süresi işlemeye başlamaktadır. Bonoda düzenleyen asli borçlu olduğu için başvuru hakları düşse bile, kendisi vadeden itibaren üç yıl boyunca sorumlu olmaya devam eder TTK m. 7491. Ancak bono, bir yıl içinde ödenmek üzere ibraz edilmediğinde, senedin görülmesi, dolayısı ile borcun muaccel olması; bundan sonra da asli borçlu için üç yıllık zamanaşımı süresinin başlaması konusunda sorun ortaya çıkmaktadır. Tam bu noktada, öğreti ve yargı uygulamasında böyle bir bonoda üç yıllık zamanaşımı süresinin, bir yıllık ibraz süresinin bitimi ile başlayacağı savunulmakta ve bir yılın son günü adeta vade olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu görüşün arkasında genelde görüldüğünden belirli süre sonra ödenecek poliçe ve bono için öngörülen TTK m. 705 hükmünün kıyasen uygulanması yatmakta; bir yılın son gününün görülme tarihi sayılacağı ifade edilmektedir. Türk, Alman ve İsviçre öğretisinde konu ile ilgili olarak bir yasa boşluğu olduğu belirtilmektedir. Bazı yazarlar ise bir yıllık sürenin dolmasını vadenin geçmesi ile eş değer görmektedir. Öncelikle bu sorunda bir yasal boşluk olup olmadığının, varsa bu boşluğun kıyas yoluyla doldurulup doldurulamayacağının irdelenmesi gerekmektedir. Yoksa bir yıllık ibraz süresini geçiren hamil bakımından, bir külfet olarak nitelendirilebilecek ibrazın yapılmamasının kendisi bakımından bir hak kaybına yol açıp açmayacağı, kimsenin kendi kusuruna dayanarak bir hak iddia edemeyeceği şeklindeki evrensel hukuk ilkesinin konu karşısındaki durumu da ayrıca incelenmeye değerdir.

Article Details

Some Issues and Opinions Concerning Commencement of Presentation and Statute of Limitations Period «on Sight» Promissory Notes

Authors:

Tamer Bozkurt

Publisher:

Anadolu University

Main Topics:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Journal:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 2, pp.439-457

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

1/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001324231

pISSN:

2687-394X

Promissory Note

A Sight Promissory Note

A Sight Bill

Period of Limitation

The Beginning of Period of LimitationBono

Görüldüğünde Ödenecek Bono

Görüldüğünde Ödenecek Poliçe

Zamanaşımı Süresi

Zamanaşımı Süresinin Başlangıcı

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Tamer Bozkurt

Publisher: Anadolu University

Main Topics: Hukuk (Diğer)

Journal: Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 2, pp.439-457

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 1/2024

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001324231

pISSN: 2687-394X

Issues

Authors:

Tamer Bozkurt

Publisher:

Anadolu University

Main Topics:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Journal:

Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 2, pp.439-457

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

1/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001324231

pISSN:

2687-394X