The Law's Test with Interest

Interest is a dangerous subject. It is political, economic, legal, and religious all at once... When this is the case, religion swallows everything else. When there is an opportunity left over from religion, economics or politics take a hand. The legal dimension of the matter is the last thing to come to mind. 

Our laws are a bit more foresighted when it comes to employee claims. In many cases involving employee claims, the court can rule for the "highest interest rate applied to deposits" against an employer who fails to pay the compensation for these claims. The rationale here is to prevent the employer from avoiding the payment of the employee's claim.

So, what happens when it comes to consumer rights? Let's assume a typical consumer is dissatisfied with a product for various reasons or that the seller has failed to fulfill their obligation. Let's say the consumer, amidst all their busy schedule, applied to the Consumer Arbitration Committee. The decision-making period for consumer arbitration committees is approximately three months. Let's say that as a result of this application, the consumer arbitration committee ruled in favor of the consumer. Let's assume it was decided that the seller should pay the monetary equivalent of the product along with interest in exchange for the product return. In this case, which interest rate will apply? The Consumer Arbitration Committee, and even the Consumer Court to which one would go upon appealing the committee's decisions, will rule for the 9% legal interest rate. Do you think this is in accordance with the law? 

HOW SHOULD INTEREST BE DETERMINED?

In this way, the consumer will have suffered twice. They will have both made an application amidst all their busy schedule and suffered non-pecuniary damage caused by the product they purchased not working. Moreover, it is highly likely that they have also suffered pecuniary damage depending on the type of this product. Their money will have remained idle for approximately three months. In the concrete case, their money will lose value against inflation. Moreover, the seller, who is the cause of all the negative situations, will have protected their money and goods against inflation. Their debt, on the other hand, will have eroded against inflation. 

The current understanding, which "cares so much" for the consumer, cares about neither non-pecuniary damages nor interest. Kudos to the patience of those who apply to the law. Despite all this, citizens apply to the law. They want to believe in justice. 

My concrete proposal:

When a decision is made in favor of the consumer in a consumer court or consumer arbitration committees, the "at least" highest interest rate applied to deposits in Turkish banks should be applied to the seller's debt. Furthermore, one should act more boldly regarding the non-pecuniary damage caused to the consumer due to the seller's fault. Of course, the judge should use their discretion according to the specific conditions of the event and the dispute. But let's make it a bit more concrete. 

FAMILY PEACE VS. INTEREST + COMPENSATION

Let's say a sofa was purchased. The room was decorated according to the color and type of this sofa, perhaps the walls were painted, and the whole family waited for the sofa with excitement. The sofa arrived. Neither the color is right nor the fabric quality... Yet the consumer is not at fault at all. The consumer notified the seller of the situation. The seller did not accept it. Finally, an application was made to the Consumer Arbitration Committee or, ultimately, to the Consumer Court. The judgment resulted in favor of the consumer. Well, in this case, family life in the room became absurd for three months. The nerves of the family members were frayed. They had difficulty accepting guests. Nothing felt right to them. Every evening they were angry and upset about the mishap that occurred. According to our judges, as a result of a rote memorization whose origin is unknown, "non-pecuniary compensation should not enrich the person." Why? And what is enrichment anyway? In such a case, let's assume the sofa is 20,000 TL. Again, according to our understanding, non-pecuniary compensation "should not be punitive." On the contrary, it should be a proper penalty. The seller should regret what they did. The consumer should find solace in non-pecuniary compensation. They should receive the reward for their trust in the law. In such an event, at least double the non-pecuniary compensation should be awarded. 

If we do not want the consumer to get rich and say, "Oh, I'm glad this happened to me," then everyone should act in accordance with the law, their debts, and their duties. 

We have touched upon the subject of non-pecuniary compensation before: https://12punto.com.tr/yazarlar/cenk-ozdag/maneviyat-oldu-coktan-28318

In addition to this non-pecuniary compensation, when a ruling is made in favor, the "highest interest rate applied to deposits" should be the minimum interest rate. Especially if the counterparty seller/producer/service provider operates in the financial field, a much higher interest rate should be ruled. Otherwise, the debtor seller/producer/service provider will never pay their debt on time. After all, they will be able to utilize the money corresponding to the debt in a much more efficient way.

LEGAL SANCTION INSURANCE

In fact, it should be made mandatory for sellers to take out insurance for such situations. Similar insurance has been taken out for healthcare workers and institutions for some time. The same can be suggested for lawyers. In this way, there would be no need to make deductions or be tight-fisted regarding the compensation of service recipients. And the debt and fault would become "sufficiently" heavy for everyone. 

If the law remains without sanctions, everything done remains as profit for the doer. In our country, the faulty seller in consumer cases is indeed making a "profit." 

Thanks to legal sanction insurance, the likelihood of those who have been wronged applying to the law also increases. As a result, an objection may arise that the burden on the courts will increase. You are right, the burden will increase. Finding a solution to this is also the job of politics. The scales of justice should not be shaken just because the burden will increase. Those who have suffered damage, lawyers, citizens, and the society as a whole will benefit from this because the weight of the word, the agreement, and the law will prevail.