Atıf Sayısı
4
Görüntüleme
61
İndirme
28
Eser sözleşmesine göre yüklenicinin meydana getirmekle yükümlendiği eser, belirli bir iş görmenin sonucundan oluşur. Eser, maddi veya maddi olmayan bir iş görme sonucu olabilir. Eser kavramını geniş yorumlayan İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi, son zamanlardaki kararlarında maddi olmayan iş görme sonuçlarının eser olarak kabul edilmesi yönünden bir sınırlama getirmiştir. Buna göre maddi olmayan iş görme sonucunun Art. 363 OR/TBK m. 470 anlamında bir eser kabul edilebilmesi için sonucun doğruluğunun objektif ölçütlere göre kontrol edilebilmesi ve bu suretle doğru veya yanlış olarak nitelendirilebilmesi gerekir. Yargıtay da eser kavramını geniş yorumlamaktadır. Yargıtay’a göre “eser sözleşmesi, bir iş görme borcu doğuran sözleşme olmakla beraber burada önemli olan çalışmanın kendisinden ziyade bu çalışma neticesi ortaya çıkan ve objektif olarak gözlemlenen sonuçtur. İşi yapmayı üstlenen, işsahibi ile akdi ilişkiye girerken bir sonuç (eser) meydana getirmeyi taahhüt etmektedir. Bu anlamda eser, bir iş görme faaliyetinin maddi veya maddi olmayan sonucudur”. Estetik operasyon, kişinin vücut bütünlüğüne yönelik estetik amaçlı cerrahi bir müdahaleyi ifade eder. Estetik operasyonu konu edinen bir sözleşme, Yargıtay’ca eser sözleşmesi olarak nitelendirilmektedir. Ancak Yargıtay’ın, taahhütte bulunanın önceden hâkim olamayacağı tartılamayan faktörlere bağlı sonuçların bir iş görme sonucu olarak vaat edilemeyeceği yönü üzerinde yeterince durmadığı gözlemlenmektedir. Nitekim mesela tedaviye ilişkin belirli bir sonucun elde edilmesi taahhüt edilemez. Aynı durum, aslında estetik operasyonlar için de geçerlidir. Yargıtay’ın estetik operasyon hakkındaki sözleşmenin hukuki niteliğine ilişkin değerlendirmesini yeniden gözden geçirmesi gerekir. Burada uygulanması gereken vekâlet sözleşmesi hükümleri olmalıdır. Eğer belirli bir operasyon sonucunun gerçekleşeceği de taahhüt ediliyorsa, sonuca ilişkin bağımsız garanti taahhüdüyle birlikte vekâlet sözleşmesi düşünülmelidir.
As per contracts of work and services, the work contractor is responsible to undertake is the outcome of a conducted business or a provided service. Work could be a material or a non-material outcome of a conducted business or provided service. The Swiss Federal Court which interprets the concept of "work" widely, in its latest decisions has introduced a limitation with regard to the acceptance of the non-material outcomes of a conducted business or a provided service as "work". Accordingly, in order for a non-material outcome of a conducted business or provided service to be considered as "work" under Article 363 OR / TBK 470 the correctness of the outcome should be objectively measurable and therefore it should be possible to qualify the outcome as either correct or incorrect. The Court of Cassation also interprets the concept of "work" widely. According to the Court of Cassation: "even though a contract for work or services, is a contract that gives rise to an obligation to conduct a business or provide a service, the significant aspect here is the objectively observed outcome of the conducted business or provided service as opposed to the business or the service itself. The contractor undertakes to produce an outcome (work) when entering into a contractual relationship with the customer. In this regard, work is the material or non-material outcome of a conducted business or provided service. Cosmetic surgery means a surgical operation towards a person’s physical integrity for cosmetic purposes. A contract regarding a cosmetic surgery is characterized as a contract of work and service by the Court of Cassation. However, it is observed that the Court of Cassation does not put sufficient emphasis on the issue that results affected by factors that cannot be forecast or measured by the party who is making an undertaking cannot be committed as a result of a conducted business or a provided service. Thus, achieving an outcome, for example, as a result of a treatment cannot be undertaken. The same situation is actually applicable for cosmetic surgeries as well. The Court of Cassation should re-consider its evaluation regarding the legal character of contracts regarding cosmetic surgeries. Provisions relating to the agency should be applied here. If the result of an operation is undertaken as an outcome, an independent guarantee undertaking regarding the outcome should be considered along with an agency contract.
As per contracts of work and services, the work contractor is responsible to undertake is the outcome of a conducted business or a provided service. Work, could be a material or a non-material outcome of a conducted business or provided service. The Swiss Federal Court which interprets the concept of “work” widely, in its latest decisions has introduced a limitation with regards to acceptance of the non-material outcomes of a conducted business or a provided service as “work”. Accordingly, in order for a non-material outcome of a conducted business or provided service to be considered as “work” under Article 363 OR / TBK 470 the correctness of the outcome should be objectively measurable and therefore it should be possible to qualify the outcome as either correct or incorrect. The Court of Cassation also interprets the concept of “work” widely. According to the Court of Cassation: “even though a contract for work or services, is a contract that gives rise to an obligation to conduct a business or provide a service, the significant aspect here is the objectively observed outcome of the conducted business or provided service as opposed to the business or the service itself. The contractor undertakes to produce an outcome (work) when entering into a contractual relationship with the customer. In this regard, work, is the material or non-material outcome of a conducted business or provided service”. Cosmetic surgery means a surgical operation towards a person’s physical integrity for cosmetic purposes. A contract regarding a cosmetic surgery is characterized as a contract of work and service by the Court of Cassation. However, it is observed that the Court of Cassation does not put enough emphasis on the issue that outcomes affected by factors which cannot be foreseen or measured by the party who is making an undertaking cannot be committed as an outcome of a conducted business or a provided service. Thus, achieving an outcome, for example, as a result of a treatment cannot be undertaken. The same situation is actually applicable for cosmetic surgeries as well. The Court of Cassation should re-consider its evaluation regarding the legal character of contracts regarding cosmetic surgeries. Provisions relating to agency should be applied here. If the result of an operation is undertaken as an outcome, an independent guarantee undertaking regarding the outcome should be considered along with an agency contract.
Alan : Hukuk
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Makale Detay 
Atıf Yapanlar
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
