THE TURKISH AND AZERBAIJANI LAWS ON UNFAIR COMPETITION VIA STANDARDISED TERMS OF CONTRACT - ASSESSMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp309-322Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis between Turkish and Azerbaijani law systems and it attempts to evaluate whether the usage of standardised terms of contract in a way that causes the infringement of the principle of good faith forming unfair competition. Standardised terms are pre-prepared without negotiating with the other contracting parties. The paper highlights that the two countries have strong connections, especially in economic and commercial terms which render even more important convergence of legal regulations. In this respect, upon examining the regulations on standardised terms and unfair competition and considering the fact that the two systems have similar approaches regarding standardised terms, the paper suggests that the usage of standardised terms in a manner that violates good faith should be qualified as unfair competition under Azerbaijani law in accordance with Article 55/1(f) of the Turkish Commercial Code. The paper assesses the issue in conjunction with the Turkish Commercial Code, Turkish Code of Obligations, the Civil Code of Azerbaijan (Mulki Mecelle) and Code on Unfair Competition. The scope of the protection that is envisaged in the relevant Turkish and Azerbaijani codes is studied from consumers’ and merchants’ aspects, respectively. The paper inter alia assesses that protecting all market participants is the most effective way to provide market balance. The paper aims to contribute to the improvement of the economic relations of Turkey and Azerbaijan via its suggestion on harmonising the two law systems in terms of unfair competition regulations.
Keywords: Banks, merchant-consumer, principle of good faith, standardised terms of contract, unfair competition.
Cite as: Gunay, E. D., & Gunay, G. E. (2021). The Turkish and Azerbaijani laws on unfair competition via standardised terms of contract – Assessments and suggestions. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 309-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp309-322
References
Atamer, Y. (2011). Control of standard form contracts according to the new Turkish Code of Obligations – In comparison to Art. 6 Turkish Consumer Code and Art. 55 Turkish Code of Commerce. Publication of the Institute for Banking and Trade Law.
Aydogdu, M. (2014). The supervision of standardised terms of contract in Turkish Code of Obligations and of unfair terms in the law on the protection of consumers. Seckin Publications.
Demirtas, N. (2014). The annotated Ottoman fatwas I, Fatwas of Ali Efendi. Kubbealtı Publications.
Dogancı, D. E. (2018). Transparency supervision of standardised terms of contract. On Iki Levha Publications.
Hatemi, H., & Gokyayla, K. E. (2012). The code of obligations general part. Vedat Publications.
Kuntalp, E. (2012). Banks and standardised terms of contract, standardised terms of contract symposium in Turkish Law (Ed. B. Sit). Publication of the Institute for Banking and Trade Law.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2018). Relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.tr/economic-relations-between-turkey-and-azerbaijan.en.mfa
Tekinalp, U. (2009). The principles of banking law. Vedat Publications.
Tig, S. G. (2019). Standardised terms of contract. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr
Topcuoglu, M. (2015). Breach of the competition through standardised terms of contract and its results. Gazi University Law Journal, XIX(4), 3-69.
Uzunallı, S. (2013). The supervision of standardised terms of contract through unfair competition provisions. Istanbul University Law Journal, LXXI(2), 383-420.
VonTuhr, A. (1983). The code of obligations. Olgac Printery.
Yagcıoglu, A. H. (2013). Open control of the content of general terms and conditions on the new Swiss federal law against unfair competition (UWG Art.8). Yasar University Law Journal, 8(1), 3057-3098.
Yolciyev, M. (2015). Concept of unfair competition in law of Azerbaijan and the examination of the unfair competition through deceiving consumers. Meliksah University Law Journal, 1(1), 1-13.
