Publication: Finansal kiralama sözleşmesinde kiraya verenin ayıplarından sorumluluğu
Abstract
Mülga FKK’da finansal kiralama sözleşmelerinde kiracının ayıp sebebiyle sahipolduğu haklara ilişkin olarak özel bir düzenleme yer almamaktaydı. Bu sebeple, MülgaBorçlar Kanunu’nun kiralanandaki ayıba ilişkin hükümlerinin finansal kiralama sözleşmesiiçin de uygulanabileceği kabul edilmekte idi. Ancak, finansal kiralama sözleşmesinin kendineözgü yapısı sebebiyle Mülga BK hükümleri ihtiyacı karşılamıyor, alternatif çözüm yollarıaranıyordu. 6361 sayılı FFFK’da, finansal kiralamaya konu eşyanın kim tarafından seçildiğidikkate alınarak ayıba bağlı hakların kime karşı ve ne şekilde kullanılacağı hususu özel olarakdüzenlenmiştir. Düzenlemeye göre, kiralayanın ayıptan sorumluluğu, kiralayanın daha öncemülkiyetine geçirmiş olduğu mallar bakımından söz konusudur. Ancak FFFK’da da, kiracınınmalın ayıplı olması nedeniyle sahip olduğu haklara ilişkin herhangi bir düzenlemeye yerverilmediğinden TBK’nın kira sözleşmesine ilişkin hükümlerini nazara almak gerekmiştir.Finansal kiralamaya konu edilen malın kiracı tarafından seçilmesi veya bizzat kiracıdansağlanması halinde ise kiracı ayıp sebebiyle finansal kiralama şirketine başvuramayacaktır.Ancak bu halde kiracının mağduriyet yaşamaması için, finansal kiralama şirketinin malınayıplı olması sebebiyle sahip olduğu hakları kiracıya devretmesi gerekmektedir. Finansalkiralama şirketinin üçüncü kişilere karşı ileri sürebileceği bir hakkının olmaması durumundaise, kiracı TBK m.112 hükmüne dayanarak finansal kiralama şirketine başvurabilecektir.
There was no specific regulation regarding the rights of the lessee related to thedelivery of defective good in the abrogated Financial Leasing Law (Law No: 3226). For thisreason, it was accepted that the provisions of the abrogated Code of Obligations (Law No:818) regarding the leasing contact could apply to financial leasing contracts. However, due tothe unique nature of the financial leasing contract, the provisions of the abrogated Code ofObligations were not sufficient and alternative solutions were sought. In The FinancialLeasing, Factoring and Financing Companies Law (Law No: 6361), rights of tenant related todefective good regulated specifically about how these rules can be used by considering whosedecision is determinant for the contract product/ goods. According to the regulation, lessor’sresponsibility, which is related to the delivery of defective good, only accepted for theproperties that bought before. There is no specific regulation regarding the rights of the lesseerelated to the delivery of defective good in the Code; therefore, taking the provisions of theCode of Obligations into account became compulsory in order to specifying the rules. If thegood subjected to financial leasing is selected or provided by these lessee, it is not allowed toclaim rights related to defected good against financial leasing company. On the other hand,with the aim to protect interests of the lessee in that case, financial leasing company has totransfer its rights related to defective good to the lessee. If the financial leasing company doesnot have any assertable rights against third party, the lessee can claim its rights arising fromarticle 112 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No: 6098).
There was no specific regulation regarding the rights of the lessee related to thedelivery of defective good in the abrogated Financial Leasing Law (Law No: 3226). For thisreason, it was accepted that the provisions of the abrogated Code of Obligations (Law No:818) regarding the leasing contact could apply to financial leasing contracts. However, due tothe unique nature of the financial leasing contract, the provisions of the abrogated Code ofObligations were not sufficient and alternative solutions were sought. In The FinancialLeasing, Factoring and Financing Companies Law (Law No: 6361), rights of tenant related todefective good regulated specifically about how these rules can be used by considering whosedecision is determinant for the contract product/ goods. According to the regulation, lessor’sresponsibility, which is related to the delivery of defective good, only accepted for theproperties that bought before. There is no specific regulation regarding the rights of the lesseerelated to the delivery of defective good in the Code; therefore, taking the provisions of theCode of Obligations into account became compulsory in order to specifying the rules. If thegood subjected to financial leasing is selected or provided by these lessee, it is not allowed toclaim rights related to defected good against financial leasing company. On the other hand,with the aim to protect interests of the lessee in that case, financial leasing company has totransfer its rights related to defective good to the lessee. If the financial leasing company doesnot have any assertable rights against third party, the lessee can claim its rights arising fromarticle 112 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No: 6098).