The Limits to the Surety’s Defenses that Arise from the Principal Debt Relationship

Günhan GÖNÜL KOŞAR
{"title":"The Limits to the Surety’s Defenses that Arise from the Principal Debt Relationship","authors":"Günhan GÖNÜL KOŞAR","doi":"10.54049/taad.1183644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Due to the accessoriness feature of the suretyship, the surety can plead against the creditor the defenses of the principal debtor arising from the principal debt relationship that can be pleaded by the principal debtor against the creditor. However, there are limits to these defenses and the surety may not plead all the defenses arising from the principal debt relationship. The defenses that arise from the principal debt relationship but cannot be pleaded by the surety are defenses that the surety cannot plead due to the nature of the surety’s undertaking; defenses that belong to the principal debtor, yet do not arise from the principal debt relationship; and finally, defenses that the surety is not allowed to plead by law. Defenses that the surety cannot plead by law are regulated under Art. 582/2 of Turkish Code of Obligations. According to this provision, the surety may not plead the mistake or incapacity to make a contract or time-barred obligations where he/she is aware of the situation at the time of the conclusion of the suretyship agreement. In situations stipulated under TCO Art. 582/2, the contract may not be categorized as suretyship due to lack of accessoriness. In this article, the scope of application of Art. 582/2 and the qualification of the contract concluded between the guarantor and the creditor shall be evaluated. Another important issue regarding the defenses that arise from the principal debt relationship but cannot be pleaded by the surety is whether the surety may plead the formative rights of the principal debtor that arise from the principal debt relationship against the creditor. The surety cannot invoke a formative right that belongs to principal debtor; however, the surety may refuse to pay under certain circumstances. This issue shall also be examined in this article. Briefly, in this article, first, general information about the suretyship agreement shall be given, then the defenses of the surety arising from the main debt relationship and the rules thereof shall be explained, and finally, the limits of the surety’s ability to apply to the defenses arising from the main debt relationship shall be examined.","PeriodicalId":106262,"journal":{"name":"Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54049/taad.1183644","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Due to the accessoriness feature of the suretyship, the surety can plead against the creditor the defenses of the principal debtor arising from the principal debt relationship that can be pleaded by the principal debtor against the creditor. However, there are limits to these defenses and the surety may not plead all the defenses arising from the principal debt relationship. The defenses that arise from the principal debt relationship but cannot be pleaded by the surety are defenses that the surety cannot plead due to the nature of the surety’s undertaking; defenses that belong to the principal debtor, yet do not arise from the principal debt relationship; and finally, defenses that the surety is not allowed to plead by law. Defenses that the surety cannot plead by law are regulated under Art. 582/2 of Turkish Code of Obligations. According to this provision, the surety may not plead the mistake or incapacity to make a contract or time-barred obligations where he/she is aware of the situation at the time of the conclusion of the suretyship agreement. In situations stipulated under TCO Art. 582/2, the contract may not be categorized as suretyship due to lack of accessoriness. In this article, the scope of application of Art. 582/2 and the qualification of the contract concluded between the guarantor and the creditor shall be evaluated. Another important issue regarding the defenses that arise from the principal debt relationship but cannot be pleaded by the surety is whether the surety may plead the formative rights of the principal debtor that arise from the principal debt relationship against the creditor. The surety cannot invoke a formative right that belongs to principal debtor; however, the surety may refuse to pay under certain circumstances. This issue shall also be examined in this article. Briefly, in this article, first, general information about the suretyship agreement shall be given, then the defenses of the surety arising from the main debt relationship and the rules thereof shall be explained, and finally, the limits of the surety’s ability to apply to the defenses arising from the main debt relationship shall be examined.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主债务关系中保证人抗辩的限制
由于保证的附属性,保证人可以向债权人主张主债务人在主债务关系中可以对债权人主张的抗辩。但是,这些抗辩是有限度的,保证人不能就主债务关系产生的所有抗辩进行抗辩。因主债务关系发生而保证人不能提出的抗辩,是指保证人因其承诺的性质而不能提出的抗辩;属于主债务人,但不因主债务关系产生的抗辩;最后,保证人的辩护是法律不允许辩护的。《土耳其义务法典》第582/2条规定了担保人不能依法抗辩的规定。根据这一规定,保证人在订立保证协议时明知有过失、无能力履行合同或者有时效义务的,不得抗辩。在《所有权法》第582/2条规定的情形下,由于合同不具备附属性,可以不归为保证。本文对第582/2条的适用范围和保证人与债权人订立的合同的资格进行评价。关于因主债务关系而产生但保证人不能提出抗辩的另一个重要问题是保证人是否可以以主债务人因主债务关系而产生的形成权对债权人提出抗辩。保证人不得援引属于主债务人的形成权;但是,在某些情况下,保证人可以拒绝付款。这一问题也将在本文中加以探讨。简要地说,本文首先介绍了保证协议的一般情况,然后解释了担保人因主债务关系产生的抗辩及其规则,最后考察了担保人因主债务关系产生的抗辩适用能力的界限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Legal Situation of Unaccompanied Minors in Turkish Law The Authority of ICSID Tribunals for Suspension of Turkish Criminal Proceedings CEZAYA DEĞER HAKSIZLIĞIN FORMEL TESPİTİNDE PARÇA HAREKET TEORİSİ (TEIL-/ZWISCHENAKTSTHEORIE) VE HUKUKUMUZ BAKIMINDAN UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ Evaluation of Provisions of Article 15 of the Cadastre Law Titled Partition and Partial Acaustion within the Framework of the Principle ANAYASA MAHKEMESİNİN TMK m. 187’NİN İPTALİNE İLİŞKİN KARARININ ANALİZİ VE DÜZENLEME ÖNERİSİ
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1