Öz
The threat (duress) is stipulated by TCO art. 37-38. Similarly, there are various regulations regarding the threat in TCO art. 39, which is applicable in all cases of defect in consent. Considering the relevant provisions, firstly, according to TCO art. 37, where a party concludes a contract under threat of the other party or a third party, he/ she is not bound by the contract. Where the threat comes from a third party, the party under threat who wishes not to be bound by the contract is obliged to pay compensation to the other party of the contract in the interest of equity. Secondly, in TCO art. 38, the conditions of the threat are included, and it is stated in which situations the threat occurs as a defect in consent. Finally, in TCO art. 39, it is stated that in cases where the party under threat, it is deemed that the contract has been ratified unless the party declares not to be bound by the contract or reclaims restitution for the performance made within one year runs from the time that the effect of threat ended. Also, according to this article, the ratification of a contract that is not binding as a result of a threat does not abolish the right to claim compensation. While the legal basis of the right of compensation of the party under threat is "tort liability" and "culpa in contrahendo liability", the legal basis of the right of compensation of the other party of the contract is the "principle of balancing of sacrifices". As can be seen, a threat has two consequences. These are the recission of the contract and the compensation. In our study, the right of compensation of the party under threat within the scope of culpa in contrahendo liability has been examined.