Court of Cassation holds illiterate person responsible for signature
The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has ruled that an illiterate person who signed a loan agreement as a guarantor cannot be assumed to be unaware of the contract's content and is therefore liable for the debt.
An illiterate person acted as a guarantor for a relative who took out a bank loan and signed the guarantee document. When the borrower failed to repay the debt, the bank initiated enforcement proceedings against the guarantor.
Following the guarantor's objection to the debt on the grounds that they were illiterate, the bank filed a lawsuit against the guarantor.
The local court hearing the case requested the guarantor's educational records from the Kumluca District Directorate of National Education. Upon finding no records, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that a person who cannot read or write would not know the content of the document they signed.
COURT OF CASSATION OVERTURNS THE DECISION
Reviewing the file upon appeal, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned the local court's decision.
FROM THE RATIONALE OF THE DECISION
The Chamber's decision stated that the guarantor did not deny signing the relevant document but argued that they were unaware of its content.
Noting that a signature serves as an identifier that reveals a person's identity and distinguishes them from others, the decision included the finding that: "A signature definitively expresses, completes, and reveals the intent to assume an obligation and, in particular, the intent to declare."
The decision stated that those who cannot read or write may use a fingerprint or a handwritten mark instead of a signature, and added the following:
"If an illiterate person uses a signature, they can enter into a contract and assume an obligation with that signature. Even if it is accepted that the defendant is illiterate, this situation alone does not result in the invalidity of the contract, nor can it be accepted solely for this reason that they were unaware of the content of the contract they signed. The signature, which is not in doubt to belong to the defendant, is sufficient for the establishment of the contract and for the defendant to assume the debt."
News Source: AA
Most Read
Striking picture for Özgür Özel's 'New Party'
Özgür Özel gives a dated response regarding the number of resignations
Forest fire in Antalya brought under control
The PKK opening and Özgür Özel’s path!..
How did the newspapers view Özgür Özel's farewell to the CHP?
He killed his wife by slitting her throat: Their children witnessed the moments
What did the CHP do?
Özel’s new party move in the world press
The New CHP, against CEHAPE
Fire at TUSAŞ engine factory in Eskişehir under control