BONODA LEHTARIN DÜZENLEYEN LEHİNE AVAL VERİP VEREMEYECEĞİ HUSUSUNDA BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun bonoda uygulanacak poliçe hükümlerine dair 778. maddesinde, düzenleyenin aynı zamanda lehtar olabileceğine ilişkin 673. maddeye atıf yapılmamıştır. Çünkü bir senedin bono sayılabilmesi, bir borç ikrarını içermesine bağlıdır. Bu kapsamda bonoda düzenleyen aynı zamanda lehtar olamaz; aksi halde bono geçersiz olacaktır. Buradan yola çıkarak, bonoda lehtarın düzenleyen lehine aval verip veremeyeceği sorusu gündeme gelmektedir. Konuya öğretide yeterince değinilmemiş olmakla birlikte, Yargıtay’ın bonoda lehtarın düzenleyen lehine aval veremeyeceği yönünde kararları bulunmaktadır. Oysa aval, kambiyo hukukuna özgü, bağımsız bir kambiyo taahhüdüdür. Bu çalışmada, bonoda lehtarın düzenleyen lehine aval vermesinin mümkün olup olmadığı, kanuni düzenlemelerden hareketle belirlenmeye çalışılmaktadır.

In the 778th article of the Turkish Commercial Code no. 6102 regarding the articles of bill of exchange to be applied to the promissory note, a reference to the article 673, which states that the drawer can also be the beneficiary, has not been made. Because for a bill to be considered as a promissory note, it depends on whether it contains a debt acknowledgment. In this context, the drawer of the promissory note can not be the beneficiary at the same time; otherwise, the promissory note will be invalid. Based on this, the question arises whether the beneficiary of the promissory note will be able to give aval in favor of the drawer. Although the subject has not been analyzed sufficiently in the doctrine, the Supreme Court has decisions stating that the beneficiary of the promissory note can not give aval in favor of the drawer. Whereas aval is an independent exchange commitment specific to law of exchange. In this study, it is attempted to determine whether it is possible for the beneficiary of the promissory note to give aval in favor of the drawer, based on legal regulations.

In the 778th article of the Turkish Commercial Code no. 6102 regarding the articles of bill of exchange to be applied to the promissory note, a reference to the article 673, which states that the drawer can also be the beneficiary, has not been made. Because for a bill to be considered as a promissory note, it depends on whether it contains a debt acknowledgment. In this context, the drawer of the promissory note can not be the beneficiary at the same time; otherwise, the promissory note will be invalid. Based on this, the question arises whether the beneficiary of the promissory note will be able to give aval in favor of the drawer. Although the subject has not been analyzed sufficiently in the doctrine, the Supreme Court has decisions stating that the beneficiary of the promissory note can not give aval in favor of the drawer. Whereas aval is an independent exchange commitment specific to law of exchange. In this study, it is attempted to determine whether it is possible for the beneficiary of the promissory note to give aval in favor of the drawer, based on legal regulations.