Abstract:

The legal consequences of the supervening impossibility due to the circumstances caused by the obligee are not explicitly regulated under Turkish Law. Therefore, it is accepted by the dominant views in the jurisprudence that there is a legal gap regarding the supervening impossibility due to the circumstances for which obligee is responsible. However, accepting that the counter-performance shall still exist is a contradictory interpretation of the Article 117 paragraph 2 of the Code of Obligations where it is clearly stated that the mutual obligations is deemed to be discharged in case of a supervening impossibility due to the circumstances for which obligor is not responsible. Conclusively, the acts of the obligee which cause the obligations of the obligor to be impossible and therefore the purpose of the contract to be frustrated shall be accepted as the positive breach of contract and the obligee shall be responsible due to the article 96 of the Code of Obligation

Keywords: