Back to Search Start Over

Legal position of third party in transfer of indirect possession by an agreement between transferor and transferee compared to lessee in case of transfer of leased property

Authors :
Karaşahin, Yasin Alperen (ORCID 0000-0002-3611-3627 & YÖK ID 257378)
Law School
Department of Law
Karaşahin, Yasin Alperen (ORCID 0000-0002-3611-3627 & YÖK ID 257378)
Law School
Department of Law
Source :
Istanbul Law Review / İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

In Turkish and Swiss law, if a bailee (third party) is in possession based on a legal relationship with the bailor, the bailor (transferor) can transfer the indirect (constructive) possession by an agreement with the transferee without the consent of the third-party bailee. The Turkish Civil Code (CC) - like the Swiss Civil Code - contains some provisions intended to prevent any negative effect from such an agreement on the interests of the third party. First, the transfer of indirect possession by agreement between transferor and transferee has no legal effect on the third party until that party is notified by the transferor (Article 979/11 of Turkish Civil Code [CC]). This period of ineffectiveness ends upon notice to the third party. However, the third party can refuse delivery to the transferee based on the same defenses that could be invoked against the transferor (Article 979/III CC). Contrary to the prevailing view in Turkish and Swiss literatures, this study argues that the above-referenced provision allows the third party to invoke defenses based on personal rights besides those based on property rights. However, this provision is only applicable to the transfer of indirect possession of chattel. In contrast to a recent opinion in Swiss literature, notice of the transfer does not cause the transferee to become a new party to the legal relationship between the original third-party bailee and transferor. Turkish and Swiss law includes only a provision about lease contracts to that effect. This provision is applicable with regard to the lease of personal and real property. However, in contracts for the lease of chattels, Article 979/III CC, as interpreted in this study, would have been sufficient to protect the lessee's interests without a disproportionate interference in the freedom of contract. / Türk ve İsviçre hukuklarında, zilyetliğin havalesi, özel bir hukukî ilişkiye dayanarak eşyaya zilyet olan üçüncü kişinin rızası aranmaksızın, devreden ile devralan<br />NA

Details

Database :
OAIster
Journal :
Istanbul Law Review / İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası
Notes :
pdf, Turkish
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1360591734
Document Type :
Electronic Resource