THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN ORDINARY PARTNERSHIP AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

İlhan Yiğit

Makale detayları

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN ORDINARY PARTNERSHIP AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

Yazarlar:

İlhan Yiğit

Yayıncı:

Tekirdag Namik Kemal University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ticaret Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.5 Issue 2, pp.315-346

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001327579

pISSN:

2717-9621

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 In the Art. 620 of Turkish Code of Obligations where simple partnership contract is defined, common goal is mentioned as one of the distinctive features of simple partnerships. In the legal doctrine, common goal is rather evaluated as the ultimate objective of the simple partnership and possibility to form a simple partnership with the object other than making profit is discussed. However, unlike the commercial companies, object of simple partnership is not explicitly mentioned in the TCO Art. 620 ff. Common goals role to cover object of business, alongside the ultimate objective should be assessed. Otherwise, it will be very hard to specify the simple partnership relationship only through the ultimate objective of profit sharing. In this vein, some authors in legal doctrine point out that simple partnerships have object of business; one should assess the provisions on contribution, prohibition of competition, dissolution where the achievement or impossibility of achievement of partnerships purpose regarding this fact and contrary approach will create problems. Therefore, object of business should be acknowledged in simple partnerships as well. It is difficult to say that the object of business, which should be specified in all commercial companies articles of incorporation, and which is stated as containing all the essential elements of the company, doesnt exist in the provisions on simple partnerships. Besides, not making this distinction will render the some of the TCO provisions mentioned in this article inapplicable, their scope of application will be extended beyond their purpose. On this ground, this article aims to propound a general principle that object of business exists in simple partnerships. Following this, legal consequences tied to the existence of object of business in simple partnerships are addressed. Within this framework, impossibility of object, whether the transactions outside the scope of object bind the partners, effect of object of business on the determination of contribution, scope of prohibition of competition and achievement of partnerships purpose or impossibility of it, are dealt with.

 In the Art. 620 of Turkish Code of Obligations where simple partnership contract is defined, common goal is mentioned as one of the distinctive features of simple partnerships. In the legal doctrine, common goal is rather evaluated as the ultimate objective of the simple partnership and possibility to form a simple partnership with the object other than making profit is discussed. However, unlike the commercial companies, object of simple partnership is not explicitly mentioned in the TCO Art. 620 ff. Common goals role to cover object of business, alongside the ultimate objective should be assessed. Otherwise, it will be very hard to specify the simple partnership relationship only through the ultimate objective of profit sharing. In this vein, some authors in legal doctrine point out that simple partnerships have object of business; one should assess the provisions on contribution, prohibition of competition, dissolution where the achievement or impossibility of achievement of partnerships purpose regarding this fact and contrary approach will create problems. Therefore, object of business should be acknowledged in simple partnerships as well. It is difficult to say that the object of business, which should be specified in all commercial companies articles of incorporation, and which is stated as containing all the essential elements of the company, doesnt exist in the provisions on simple partnerships. Besides, not making this distinction will render the some of the TCO provisions mentioned in this article inapplicable, their scope of application will be extended beyond their purpose. On this ground, this article aims to propound a general principle that object of business exists in simple partnerships. Following this, legal consequences tied to the existence of object of business in simple partnerships are addressed. Within this framework, impossibility of object, whether the transactions outside the scope of object bind the partners, effect of object of business on the determination of contribution, scope of prohibition of competition and achievement of partnerships purpose or impossibility of it, are dealt with.

 In the Art. 620 of Turkish Code of Obligations where simple partnership contract is defined, common goal is mentioned as one of the distinctive features of simple partnerships. In the legal doctrine, common goal is rather evaluated as the ultimate objective of the simple partnership and possibility to form a simple partnership with the object other than making profit is discussed. However, unlike the commercial companies, object of simple partnership is not explicitly mentioned in the TCO Art. 620 ff. Common goals role to cover object of business, alongside the ultimate objective should be assessed. Otherwise, it will be very hard to specify the simple partnership relationship only through the ultimate objective of profit sharing. In this vein, some authors in legal doctrine point out that simple partnerships have object of business; one should assess the provisions on contribution, prohibition of competition, dissolution where the achievement or impossibility of achievement of partnerships purpose regarding this fact and contrary approach will create problems. Therefore, object of business should be acknowledged in simple partnerships as well. It is difficult to say that the object of business, which should be specified in all commercial companies articles of incorporation, and which is stated as containing all the essential elements of the company, doesnt exist in the provisions on simple partnerships. Besides, not making this distinction will render the some of the TCO provisions mentioned in this article inapplicable, their scope of application will be extended beyond their purpose. On this ground, this article aims to propound a general principle that object of business exists in simple partnerships. Following this, legal consequences tied to the existence of object of business in simple partnerships are addressed. Within this framework, impossibility of object, whether the transactions outside the scope of object bind the partners, effect of object of business on the determination of contribution, scope of prohibition of competition and achievement of partnerships purpose or impossibility of it, are dealt with.

 Adi ortaklık sözleşmesinin tanımının yapıldığı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m. 620de müşterek amaca değinilmiş ve adi ortaklığın ayırt edici unsurları arasında sayılmıştır. Doktrinde müşterek amaç, daha çok adi ortaklığın nihai hedefi olarak değerlendirilmiş, kazanç gayesi dışındaki işler bakımından adi ortaklığın kurulup kurulmayacağı ele alınmıştır. BK m. 620 vd. hükümlerinde ise, ticaret şirketlerinin aksine, ortaklığın konusu açıkça ele alınmamıştır. Müşterek amacın, nihai hedefi belirtmek yanında adi ortaklığın konusunu da içerdiği değerlendirilmelidir. Salt nihai hedef olan kazanç paylaşımından yola çıkılarak, adi ortaklık ilişkisine belirlilik kazandırmak çok güçleşecektir. Nitekim doktrinde bazı yazarlar, adi ortaklıkta bir konunun bulunduğuna, BKnın katılım payına, rekabet yasağına, infisah nedenlerinden olan amacın gerçekleşmesi veya gerçekleşmesinin imkânsızlığına ilişkin düzenlemelerin bu gerçek dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğine işaret etmişlerdir. O halde adi ortaklıkta da bir konunun olduğu kabul edilmelidir. Ticaret şirketlerinin hepsinin şirket esas sözleşmelerinde bulunması gereken işletme konusunun, şirketin temel unsurlarını da içerdiği belirtilen adi şirkette bulunmadığını söylemek güçtür. Ayrıca bu tür ayrıma gitmemek, BKnın işbu makalede yer verilen bazı maddelerinin uygulanmasını imkânsız hale getireceği gibi kapsamlarının da çok geniş olması sonucunu doğuracaktır. İşte bu esastan yola çıkılarak işbu makalede adi ortaklıkta da bir konunun bulunduğunu ortaya koymak bakımından genel bir ilke belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Akabinde ise konunun varlığının kabulünün, adi ortaklıkta ne tür sonuçlar doğuracağına değinilmiştir. Bu çerçevede, konunun imkânsızlığı, konu dışında işlemlerin ortakları bağlayıcılığı, katılım payının belirlenmesinde göstereceği etki, rekabet yasağının kapsamı ve ortaklık faaliyet konusunun elde edilmesi veya imkânsızlaşması konuları, makale konusuyla sınırlı olarak, ele alınmıştır.

Makale detayları

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN ORDINARY PARTNERSHIP AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

Yazarlar:

İlhan Yiğit

Yayıncı:

Tekirdag Namik Kemal University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ticaret Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.5 Issue 2, pp.315-346

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001327579

pISSN:

2717-9621

Simple partnership

common goal

object of simple partnership

invalidity

prohibition of competition

contribution

achievement of partnership’s purpose

impossibility of achievement of partnership’s purpose

transaction outside the scope of object

partner.Adi ortaklık

adi şirket

faaliyet konusu

rekabet yasağı

katılım payı

amacın gerçekleşmesi

imkansızlık

müşterek amaç

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: İlhan Yiğit

Yayıncı: Tekirdag Namik Kemal University

Ana Başlıklar: Ticaret Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi: Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.5 Issue 2, pp.315-346

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001327579

pISSN: 2717-9621

Sayı

Yazarlar:

İlhan Yiğit

Yayıncı:

Tekirdag Namik Kemal University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ticaret Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.5 Issue 2, pp.315-346

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001327579

pISSN:

2717-9621