ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

34 NEWSLETTER 2018 covered by the seller); provisions that limit the optional rights of the buyer (for example, not granting the right of rescission of the contract to the seller, granting only the rights of repair or replacement); provi- sions that shorten the time period for inspection of the sold goods, and notification of the seller regarding the defects or the period of limitation. As it is clear from the examples, limitation of liability not only refers to agreements that directly limit liability, but also to the agreements that aggravate the legal condition of the creditor under the legal regime that applies to liability 3 . In the doctrine, it is argued that a general contractual condition, which completely removes liability, shall not cover defects that fall beyond the scope of defects that the buyer could reasonably think of, and cannot be expected to be predicted by the buyer under the principle of good faith 4 . As well, a seller’s explicit notification of quality regarding the sold goods to the seller, while simultaneously concluding an agreement that generally removes liability, shall violate the contradictory conduct prohibition, and in that instance, provisions that remove liability shall be rendered invalid, in their entirety 5 . Validity of Exemption Clauses under Various Legal Systems Provisions that limit or remove a seller’s liability in sales con- tracts qualify as “exemption clauses.” In many legal systems, exemp- tion clauses are specifically regulated. Below, certain local laws and international conventions are examined in this respect: • Turkish Law: Article 221 of the Turkish Code of Obligati- ons numbered 6098 (“TCO”) is a special provision regarding exemption clauses in the sales contracts. Under this provisi- on, if the seller is grossly negligent in delivering the defective 3 Kapancı , p. 24. 4 Kapancı , p. 25; Aral, Fahrettin : Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri, Ankara 2007, p. 152; Tandoğan, Haluk : Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri, V. I, An- kara 1987, p. 175. 5 Kapancı , p. 25; Akyol, Şener : Medeni Hukukta Çelişki Yasağı, Prof. Dr. Feyfi Feyzioğlu’nun Anısına Armağan, İstanbul 2007, p. 13 vd.; Gümüş, Alper Mus - tafa ; Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, İstanbul 2008, p. 142; Yavuz, Cevdet : Satıcının Satılanın (Malın) Ayıplarından Sorumluluğu, İstanbul 1989, p. 98.