Contractual Penalty under Turkish Law

September 2016 Ecem Çetinyılmaz
% 0

Introduction

A contractual penalty, or penal clause, is used as a mechanism to force a debtor to duly fulfil its obligations under a contract. Whereas a creditor may claim its damages in accordance with the general provisions of the law of obligations, having a contractual penalty provision set forth under a contract eliminates the obligation to prove the damages, and enables the creditor to claim a pre-determined and precise penalty amount. Contractual penalties are widely used in practice, especially in contracts with high values. The following sections of this newsletter article explain the legal characteristics and types of contractual penalties, as well as the amount, invalidity, and reduction of penalty.

Legal Characteristic and Features of Contractual Penalty

Although a contractual penalty is a type of performance obligation that is subject to a dilatory condition, since it is specifically regulated under Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098[1] (“TCO”), it is primarily subject to these provisions, instead of the provisions regulating the conditions[2].

Parties to an agreement consent to a penalty in cases where the primary obligation is not fulfilled; therefore, a penal clause is not a stand-alone clause. A penalty obligation is subject to a primary obligation, and can be regulated for any type of obligation, except for the obligations that are explicitly prohibited from being subject to a penalty, such as the obligation of rental payment for residential and enclosed workplaces, or penal clauses that are to the detriment of the consumer in consumer contracts. Further, agreements stipulating that the guarantor shall also be liable under contractual penalty are null and void. As per Article 182/2 of the TCO, if a primary obligation is invalid for any reason or, unless otherwise agreed, later becomes impossible to fulfil due to a reason not attributable to the debtor, the creditor cannot claim the fulfilment of the penalty. The invalidity of the primary obligation may be due to, among other things, violation of the law, ethics and personal rights, as well as non-compliance with its formal requirements, or lack of legal competence. If the contract for the primary obligation is subject to a formal requirement, a penal clause must be also agreed to through following the same formal requirement.

Similar to the primary obligation, any type of penalty can be regulated under a contract. Although the majority of the time monetary penalties are preferred, in practice, other forms of penalties, such as the obligations to give, to do, or not to do are also possible, save for obligations that are in violation of the law, ethics and personal rights. Notwithstanding, Article 182/2 of the TCO sets forth that the penal clause being rendered invalid, or later becoming impossible to fulfil due to a reason not attributable to the debtor shall not affect the validity of the primary obligation.

Relationship of Contractual Penalty with the Fault of the Debtor and Damages of the Creditor

If an obligation is not duly fulfilled, or not fulfilled at all, the debtor is responsible to recover the damages of the creditor, unless it proves that no fault can be attributed to it. In accordance with this general principle of the Turkish law of obligations, claiming the contractual penalty is subject to the existence of debtor’s fault. Article 182/2 of the TCO explicitly clarifies this by regulating that the debtor shall not be liable for the contractual penalty if its obligation becomes impossible to fulfil without its fault yet allows the parties to agree otherwise under the contract. Following the evidentiary rule, it is sufficient for the creditor to prove that the obligation has not been duly fulfilled, but not the fault of the debtor.

The most distinctive characteristic of penal clauses is that unlike the debtor being at fault, the creditor does not have to suffer damages in order to enjoy compensation through the penalty clause. As per Article 180/1 of the TCO, even if the creditor has not suffered any losses, the penalty obligation must be fulfilled. Similarly, the degree of damages does not affect the penalty obligation; therefore, having a penal clause under a contract releases the creditor from the burden to prove its damages. Elimination of the possibility of confronting difficulties in evidencing damages, and the prevention of any possible disputes that may arise in relation to the calculation of the damages are the main reasons for using penal clauses, in practice. A debtor who would not hesitate to incur a compensation obligation with an undetermined amount and calculation method, and therefore procrastinating to fulfil its obligations, might feel the necessity to act cautiously and prudently in the event of the existence of an agreed, certain and accurate penalty that would accrue, irrespective of the occurrence of the creditor’s damages[3].

The creditor is entitled to claim damages in addition to the penalty only if its damages exceed the penalty amount, and only for the exceeding portion. However, the burden of proof to evidence the debtor’s fault passes to the creditor, and the creditor must prove that the debtor is at fault in the non-fulfilment of its obligation in order to claim the exceeding damages.

Types of Contractual Penalties

Penalty in Lieu of Performance

Article 179/1 of the TCO regulates the penalty in lieu of performance, which means that the creditor is entitled to claim the performance of either the obligation or the penalty. This is when a penalty has been agreed upon between the parties for cases where the obligation is not duly fulfilled, or not fulfilled at all. In such a case, unless otherwise explicitly understood from the contract, the creditor must choose between the two options, unless the primary obligation becomes impossible to fulfil due to a reason attributable to the debtor, in which case the creditor will be entitled to claim the penalty, only. On the other hand, the wording of Article 179/1 allows the parties to agree in the contact on the performance of both the obligation and the penalty.

Penalty together with Performance

As per Article 179/2 of the TCO, if the penalty has been agreed upon in cases where the obligation is unfulfilled by the determined time, or at the determined place, the creditor is, in principle, entitled to request non-performance of the penalty, together with the primary obligation, unless it has explicitly waived its right, or has accepted the performance without any reservations. For example, the 19th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation rendered a judgment in this regard, and stated that in the event of contracts containing a minimum order commitments, including periodic performances, continuing to supply products following the end of a period without making a reservation or a notification, shall be deemed as a tacit waiver of the penalty claim pertaining to the previous period[4].

Whereas it is also possible to agree on a penalty in lieu of performance, unless otherwise understood from the contract, the debtor is liable for both the performance (delayed or at the right place) and the penalty.

Amount and Reduction of Penalty

Whereas the parties are free to determine the penalty amount as per Article 182/1 of the TCO, Article 182/3 authorizes the court to ex officio reduce the amount if it deems it to be excessive. Although the court is entitled to decide whether or not to reduce the amount and determine the new amount, according to the Turkish Court of Cassation, “whether or not the contractual penalty amount is excessive should be determined based on the economic status of the parties, specifically the payment capacity of the debtor, as well as the benefits gained by the debtor due to non-fulfilment of its obligation, degree of fault and the gravity of the behaviour in violation of the obligation and in accordance with the principles of justice and equity”[5]. The court must also consider the indemnification and penalty functions of the penal clause[6] and strike a balance between the facts of the specific case and the effectiveness of the penalty amount so as to force the debtor to fulfil its obligation. The court is authorized to reduce the amount only, not to eliminate it completely, or replace it with another type of penalty.

An exception to this rule is the contractual penalty agreed to against the merchant debtor in commercial agreements. Article 22 of Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102[7] sets forth that a merchant debtor cannot request the court to reduce the penalty due to its excessiveness.

Conclusion

A contractual penalty, or penal clause, eliminates the creditor’s obligation to prove its damages, and enables it to claim a pre-determined and precise penalty amount. Claiming the contractual penalty is subject to the existence of debtor’s fault, but does not require the occurrence of damages to the creditor. A penalty obligation is subject to the primary obligation, and can be regulated for any type of obligation, except for the obligations that are explicitly prohibited from being subject to a penalty. Similarly, any type of penalty can be regulated under a contract. In principle, in the event the obligation is not duly fulfilled, or not fulfilled at all, the creditor shall be entitled to claim either the performance of the obligation or the penalty; whereas, it can claim both at the same time in the event the obligation is not fulfilled by the determined time, or at the determined place. The parties are free to determine the penalty amount under the contract, yet the court is authorized to reduce the amount if it deems excessive.

[1] The TCO (Official Gazette, 04.02.2011, No. 27836) entered into force on 01.07.2012.

[2] Oğuzman, Öz, Law of Obligations General Provisions Volume 2, 9th Edition Updated and Extended in accordance with the New Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2012, p. 504.

[3] Oğuzman, Öz, Law of Obligations General Provisions Volume 2, 9th Edition Updated and Extended in accordance with the New Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2012, p. 504.

[4] Turkish Court of Cassation 19th Civil Chamber, File No. 2014/3953, Decision No. 2014/7865, Date: 24.04.2014 (www.kazancı.com).

[5] Turkish Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, File No. 2015/504, Decision No. 2016/5643, Date: 23.02.2016 (www.kazancı.com).

[6] Turkish Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, File No. 2013/679, Decision No. 2013/12298, Date: 12.09.2013 (www.kazancı.com).

[7] The TCC (Official Gazette, 14.02.2011, No. 27846) entered into force on 01.07.2012.

All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.

Other Contents

Newsletter Articles
The Constitutional Court’s Decision on Cahide Demir’s Application with regards to the Right to Property

The Constitutional Court, in its decision dated 14.09.2021 on application no. 2018/25663 (“Decision"), found that applicant Cahide Demir’s right to property was violated on the ground that the mortgage on her real estate, established to secure a third party’s debt, had not been released by the...

Law of Obligations May 2022
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
The Sanction of a Contract Provision Being Deemed Unwritten in the Context of General Terms and Conditions

The use of general terms and conditions is a commercial reality not only in consumer transactions but also in commercial transactions in certain industries such as automotive, banking, insurance, telecommunications and energy...

Law of Obligations January 2022
Newsletter Articles
Bitcoin under Turkish Law
Law of Obligations November 2020
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
A New Era in Lease Agreements
Law of Obligations June 2020
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Intragroup Loans
Law of Obligations December 2018
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Bank Letters of Credit
Law of Obligations September 2017
Newsletter Articles
Electronic Contracting in Turkey
Law of Obligations July 2017
Newsletter Articles
Newsletter Articles
Special Lien in Favour of the Lessor
Law of Obligations April 2017
Newsletter Articles
The Code on Movable Pledges and Its Innovations
Law of Obligations November 2016
Newsletter Articles

For creative legal solutions, please contact us.