Defective Performance in Vehicle Sales in Turkey: Key Points and Exceptions in the Light of Court of Cassation Case Law

Yazar: Av. Hüseyin AydınYayın: 12 October 2026Son güncelleme: 19 October 2026

Attorney Hüseyin Aydın – Alanya Lawyer

In purchases and sales on the second-hand motor vehicle market, the seller is, as a rule, subject to liability for defects (TR: ayıptan doğan sorumluluk / DE: Sachmängelhaftung / RU: Ответственность за недостатки товара) towards the buyer even if the seller was unaware of the defects in the vehicle. However, this statutory liability is neither unlimited nor unconditional; it is surrounded by very important exceptions such as the duty of inspection and notice (TR: muayene ve ihbar külfeti / DE: Untersuchungs- und Rügepflicht / RU: Обязанность по осмотру и уведомлению), the buyer’s knowledge at the time of sale, user error (TR: kullanım hatası / DE: Bedienungsfehler / RU: Ошибка эксплуатации) arising after delivery, and the statute of limitations (TR: zamanaşımı süresi / DE: Verjährungsfrist / RU: Срок исковой давности) laid down by law. In practice, the overwhelming majority of disputes that reach the courts turn not so much on the question “is there a fault or damage in the vehicle?” but rather on the question “did this defect exist at the moment the vehicle was delivered, or did it result from the buyer’s use after delivery?”

Second-hand vehicle trading is extremely active particularly in Alanya, a centre of tourism, commerce and international settlement, as well as in Gazipaşa, Manavgat, Mahmutlar, Oba, Konaklı and the Antalya region in general. Because of the large number of foreign nationals (from Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, etc.) who reside and own property in the region, serious grievances frequently arise in notarised sales and vehicle transfers due to the language barrier, taking delivery of a vehicle without an inspection, or relying on standard-form contract clauses.

In this comprehensive guide, starting from a current dispute, we examine the regime of defective performance (TR: ayıplı ifa / DE: Mangelhafte Leistung / RU: Ненадлежащее исполнение) in the light of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK), the Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (TKHK), the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TTK) and the most recent precedents of the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) and its relevant chambers.

1. Case Study: A High-Mileage Pick-Up and Engine Failure

Almost all of the key issues encountered in practice in defective-performance cases concerning second-hand vehicle sales are clearly illustrated in a specific case still pending before a court of first instance (the parties, licence plate and case details have been anonymised for confidentiality):

• The Sale Process: Two private individuals made contact through an online listings portal, negotiated, and completed the registration at a notary. The vehicle is a 2013 model 4×4 pick-up truck with approximately 324,000 kilometres. No independent inspection was carried out by the parties before the sale.
• The Notarial Contract Clause: The notarial vehicle sale contract contains the standard-form wording “The buyer has taken delivery of this vehicle in its present condition, having seen and approved it… the parties declare that there is no inspection report…”
• The Failure: After delivery, when the vehicle had covered between 500 and 1,000 km, the engine suddenly overheated, making a major engine repair necessary, including the cylinder head gasket, turbo, cylinder head and a complete engine rebuild. The buyer claimed the cost of parts and labour as well as loss of use compensation (TR: araçtan yoksun kalım tazminatı / DE: Nutzungsausfallentschädigung / RU: Компенсация за утрату возможности эксплуатации) for the period during which he was deprived of the vehicle while it was being repaired.
• The Buyer’s Claim: In the online listing and in messages, the seller had given the assurance that “the engine, mechanics, gearbox and differential are flawless, all servicing has just been done”; relying on this statement, the buyer did not consider an inspection necessary. The overheating and engine damage were the result of a latent (hidden) defect (TR: gizli ayıp / DE: Versteckter Mangel / RU: Скрытый дефект) that already existed at the time of delivery.
• The Seller’s Defence: The vehicle was test-driven and checked before delivery. Immediately after taking delivery, the buyer drove the vehicle excessively hard on steep slopes and in heavy off-road conditions (social-media video recordings of this were submitted to the file as evidence). The repair was carried out hastily at a private garage without obtaining a court-ordered preservation of evidence (TR: delil tespiti / DE: Beweissicherungsverfahren / RU: Обеспечение доказательств). The failure did not result from a defect present at delivery but from the buyer’s misuse (TR: hor kullanma / DE: Unsachgemäße Nutzung / RU: Неправильная эксплуатация).
• The Expert Report (Mechanical Engineer): The expert appointed by the court found that the wear in the engine’s cooling and lubrication channels was the result of long-term use, that this weakness and the hairline leaks already existed at the time of sale, that a short period of demanding off-road use could not cause such severe damage to a healthy engine, and that the condition could not be detected by a simple external visual inspection; on this basis, the expert technically classified the failure as a “latent defect”. The report also stated that the repair invoice was consistent with market rates and that a reasonable repair period should be taken as 10 working days.

This specific case makes concrete the most fundamental issues that form the backbone of this article: the legal effect of the notary’s standard-form “I bought it in its present condition” clause, the consequences of not obtaining an independent inspection report (TR: ekspertiz raporu / DE: Zustandsbericht / Gutachten / RU: Экспертное заключение / Акт осмотра), the limits of the seller’s user-error defence, and the evidential value of repairs carried out without a court-ordered preservation of evidence.

2. Legal Framework: Competent Court and Burden of Proof under the TBK, TKHK and TTK

When the rules on defective performance are applied to second-hand motor vehicle sales, the legal capacity of the parties is decisive. Depending on whether the parties are consumers, tradespeople/merchants or ordinary private individuals, the applicable law, the competent court, the burden of proof and the notice periods change radically:

Type of Relationship (Capacity of the Parties)	Main Applicable Legislation	Competent Jurisdiction / Court	Key Procedural and Evidential Rule
Private Individual → Private Individual (Between Two Citizens Who Are Not Dealers / Merchants)	TBK Arts. 219–231	Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi)	The consumer presumption does not apply. The burden of proving that the defect existed at the time of delivery lies with the claimant buyer.
Dealer / Car Lot → Consumer (Seller Acting for Professional/Commercial Purposes)	Law No. 6502 (TKHK) Arts. 8–12, supplemented by the TBK	Consumer Court (or Consumer Arbitration Committee depending on the monetary threshold)	6-Month Consumer Presumption: A defect that appears within the first 6 months after delivery is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. The burden of proof lies with the seller.
Merchant → Merchant (Sale Relating to the Commercial Enterprises of Both Parties)	TTK Art. 23/1-c and the TBK	Commercial Court of First Instance (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi)	Very strict inspection and notice periods apply (2 days for patent defects, 8 days for ordinary inspection); if the period is missed, the rights are lost.

Under Article 219 TBK, which is a general provision, the seller is liable not only for damage resulting from the absence of qualities the seller has represented to the buyer, but also for material, legal or economic defects that eliminate or significantly reduce the value of the vehicle being transferred or the reasonable and contractual benefits the buyer expects from it. Pursuant to the express mandatory wording of the same article: “The seller is liable for these defects even if the seller is unaware of their existence.” In other words, the warranty obligation against defects is not a fault-based liability but a strict (no-fault) liability (TR: kusura bağlı olmayan sorumluluk / DE: Verschuldensunabhängige Haftung / RU: Ответственность без вины).

As emphasised in the decisions of the 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and of the 3rd Civil Chamber, which currently has jurisdiction, even the fact that the odometer was not rolled back while the vehicle was owned by the seller, or that the damage occurred during the ownership of previous owners, does not release the seller from liability towards the buyer (Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/25258, K. 2019/10215; Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2022/6482, K. 2022/8092). Even a person who, in good faith and wholly unaware, buys a vehicle whose mileage has been manipulated and then sells it on is liable by law to pay compensation to his or her own buyer; however, that person retains the right of recourse to claim the amount paid from the previous seller who acted in bad faith.

Exception – The 6-Month Consumer Presumption: The presumption in Article 10/1 TKHK that “defects that appear within six months of the date of delivery are presumed to have existed on the date of delivery” applies only to consumer transactions in which the seller acts for commercial or professional purposes (a car dealership, an authorised dealer, etc.). This statutory presumption cannot be relied on in a vehicle sale concluded at a notary between two private individuals in and around Alanya; the claimant must prove that the defect existed at the time of delivery in accordance with the general rules.

Exception – The Special Obligation of Car Dealers: Under the Regulation on the Trade of Second-Hand Motor Land Vehicles, licensed car dealers and businesses are legally obliged to obtain a TSE-approved inspection report before a sale. For this reason, a professional car dealer’s defence in court that “the buyer did not have the vehicle inspected and bought it having seen it” carries no legal weight in the face of the case law of the Court of Cassation.

3. Inspection, Duty of Notice and Latent Defects (Consequences of Not Having an Inspection)

Under Article 223 TBK, the buyer must examine the vehicle received as soon as this is possible in the ordinary course of business and, if a defect is found, notify the seller within a reasonable time. Otherwise, the buyer is deemed to have accepted the vehicle together with the defect. However, if the fault in the vehicle is a latent defect that cannot be detected by an ordinary examination, the rule changes: a latent defect must be notified to the seller without delay as soon as it comes to light (TR: derhal ihbar / DE: Unverzügliche Mängelanzeige / RU: Незамедлительное уведомление).

According to the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, a buyer who learns of a total-loss record or a history of heavy damage when applying for comprehensive (kasko) insurance and sends a notarial warning letter without delay as soon as he or she learns of it is not deemed to have missed the notice period (Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/22567, K. 2019/4145). Moreover, filing a lawsuit directly upon learning of the defect is also accepted by the Court of Cassation as valid notice; the burden of proving that notice was not given in time lies with the seller, who makes that allegation (Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/24903, K. 2019/6260).

Is Failing to Have an Inspection the Buyer’s Fault?
The fact that the buyer did not take the vehicle to an independent vehicle inspection service when buying it is the objection most frequently raised by sellers in lawsuits. The well-established case law of the Court of Cassation is clear: No, failing to have an inspection cannot be regarded as the buyer’s fault and does not remove the seller’s liability.

A local court’s decision dismissing the case on the ground that a buyer who bought a vehicle without an inspection should bear his own loss was reversed by the Court of Cassation, which recorded the following principles:
“The burden of proving that the defect was not concealed lies with the defendant seller… The seller is liable by law for the defects even if unaware of their existence… No contributory fault of the claimant buyer can be spoken of in this case.” (Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/13103, K. 2019/4508). The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation also expressly upheld that the buyer has no legal obligation to research police, Tramer (insurance damage database) and insurance records in advance (Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/1507, K. 2023/3209).

However, this general rule protecting the buyer has 4 vital exceptions:

1. Patent Defect (TR: açık ayıp / DE: Offener Mangel / RU: Явный дефект): As a rule, the buyer is not protected in respect of obvious faults that can be noticed immediately on a simple visual inspection, such as deep scratches on the bodywork, a clear mismatch in paint shade, a broken mirror or a cracked window (Article 222 TBK). For such defects, failing to have an inspection and failing to object on delivery operate to the buyer’s detriment.
2. A Defect the Buyer Knew or Should Have Known of: If the vehicle was bought for a price very markedly below its free-market value, the court may conclude that the buyer knew of the damage or, in the ordinary course of life, was in a position to know of it.
3. Commercial Sales (Sales Between Merchants): If the sale is commercial in nature, Article 23 TTK comes into play. The buyer must notify patent defects within 2 days of delivery and, after carrying out the necessary inspection, latent defects within 8 days. If these periods are exceeded, all elective rights are lost. For the rules on commercial books and delivery in this regard, you may review our guide on invoices and the presumption of delivery.
4. The Seller’s Gross Fault (TR: ağır kusur / DE: Grobe Fahrlässigkeit / RU: Грубая неосторожность): If the seller knowingly concealed the defect or misled the buyer by fraudulent conduct (Article 225 TBK), the seller can never raise the defence that the buyer failed to inspect and give notice in time. The Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has applied this rule uncompromisingly to a seller who sold a heavily damaged vehicle (Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK), E. 2018/436, K. 2021/1717).

4. The Buyer’s Elective Rights and Calculating a Price Reduction by the Proportional Method

Under Article 227 TBK, if a defect appears in the vehicle delivered, the buyer may freely exercise one of the following 4 elective rights:

• Rescission of Contract (TR: sözleşmeden dönme / DE: Rücktritt vom Kaufvertrag / RU: Расторжение договора): Returning the vehicle and recovering the purchase price paid together with interest.
• Price Reduction in Proportion to the Defect (TR: ayıp oranında bedel indirimi / DE: Minderung des Kaufpreises / RU: Соразмерное уменьшение покупной цены): Keeping the vehicle and obtaining a refund in proportion to the reduction in its value.
• Free Repair (TR: ücretsiz onarım / DE: Kostenlose Nachbesserung / RU: Безвозмездный ремонт): Having the vehicle repaired at the seller’s expense, provided this does not entail excessive cost.
• Replacement with a Defect-Free Equivalent (TR: ayıpsız misliyle değişim / DE: Ersatzlieferung / RU: Замена товара): Replacing the vehicle with a defect-free equivalent (mainly applicable to brand-new vehicles).

In addition, the buyer retains the right to claim compensation under the general provisions for other losses suffered (for example, towing costs, the inspector’s fee and the cost of a replacement vehicle for the period without a vehicle). For the general principles on fault and the allocation of liability in traffic, you may visit our guide on traffic fines and liability and our guide on compensation in vehicle accidents.

The Judge’s Power to Intervene in Rescission:
Under Article 227/2 TBK, even if the buyer files a lawsuit seeking rescission of the contract, the judge may, taking into account the circumstances of the dispute, the age of the vehicle and the seriousness of the defect, of his or her own motion order a price reduction if rescission is found to be inequitable. Where minor or repairable defects are involved in high-mileage second-hand vehicles, rescission claims are mostly converted into price reductions.

The Calculation Required by the Court of Cassation: The Proportional Method

When calculating a price reduction, a court’s award of the invoice amount or of the approximate repair cost determined by the expert directly as compensation is regarded by the Court of Cassation as a definite ground for reversal. According to the settled decisions of the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, the reduction must without exception be calculated using the proportional method (TR: nispi metot / DE: Relative Berechnungsmethode / RU: Пропорциональный метод расчета) formula (Court of Cassation HGK, E. 2021/539, K. 2022/1267):

Reduced Price Payable = Actual Sale Price × (Defective Value of the Vehicle on the Date of Sale / Defect-Free Value of the Vehicle on the Date of Sale)

The critical errors for which judgments are most frequently reversed on review by the Court of Cassation are as follows:

• Using the values as at the date of the lawsuit or the date the expert report was drawn up instead of the date of sale (Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2022/8537, K. 2023/1185).
• Putting hypothetical values into the proportion instead of the fixed sale price agreed in the contract (Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2024/2841, K. 2024/2610).
• Accepting only the repair parts invoice as the reduction without applying the proportional method (Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2020/5001, K. 2021/1102).

The Low Notarial Price Trap:
It is extremely common in Turkey to state a figure far below the real sale price in the notarial contract in order to pay less tax or notarial fees. When the proportional method is applied to the price stated in the contract, the buyer may suffer a very significant loss of rights. The Court of Cassation has held that the court must of its own motion investigate the buyer’s allegations and evidence (bank transfer/EFT receipts, correspondence, etc.) that he or she actually paid a higher sum than the one written at the notary (Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2022/6482, K. 2022/8092). For this reason, it is vitally important in vehicle sales that payments are always made through a bank, with the vehicle’s licence plate and chassis number written in the payment description. For the assessment of allegations of fraud and sham transactions (muvazaa) in legal transactions, you may refer to our guide on fraud and sham transactions in sales.

Diminution in the Vehicle’s Value after Repair (TR: araç değer kaybı / DE: Merkantiler Minderwert / RU: Утрата товарной стоимости – УТС):
Major interventions such as fitting a replacement (crate) engine, grinding the cylinder head or straightening the chassis create a permanent loss of value in the eyes of the market even if the defect is remedied by repair. The Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has accepted that replacing the engine block and parts does not increase but rather decreases the vehicle’s value, and that this loss of value must be compensated in addition to the repair costs (Court of Cassation HGK, E. 2020/642, K. 2022/1120).

5. The Notarial “As Seen” Clause and the Limits of Exclusion-of-Liability Agreements

Standard-form wording in notarial vehicle transfer deeds such as “The buyer has taken delivery of the vehicle in its present condition, having seen, approved and checked it” (TR: “görüldüğü gibi” kaydı / DE: “Gekauft wie gesehen”-Klausel / RU: Условие “как есть” / в текущем состоянии) is regarded by sellers as a kind of shield of immunity. Yet according to the consistent decisions of the Court of Cassation, this clause protects the seller only in respect of patent defects visible from the outside; it by no means removes liability arising from latent defects.

The Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has emphasised that these expressions in notarial contracts are standard-form and formulaic, that they cannot cover latent defects inside the vehicle’s engine or electronic control unit, and that the seller’s statutory liability continues even if the seller did not expressly give a warranty (Court of Cassation HGK, E. 2018/436, K. 2021/1717; Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/1507, K. 2023/3209). Similarly, the clause in our case study that “the parties declare that there is no inspection report” is intended only to exclude the notary’s professional liability; it does not remove the seller’s liability for latent defects.

Can an Exclusion-of-Liability Agreement (TR: ayıptan sorumsuzluk anlaşması / DE: Vereinbarung eines Haftungsausschlusses / RU: Соглашение об освобождении от ответственности) Be Made by Contract?
Under Article 221 TBK, the parties may agree special contractual clauses limiting or entirely excluding liability for defects. However, the legislature has drawn 3 very strict statutory limits on this freedom:

• Nullity in the Case of the Seller’s Gross Fault: If the seller is grossly at fault (for example, if the seller knew or should have known of the failure), the exclusion agreement is absolutely null and void (Article 221 TBK).
• Fraud by a Seller Who Conceals a Known Defect: According to the Assembly of Civil Chambers, a seller who knows of a fault in the vehicle but remains silent and hides behind an exclusion clause is deemed to have acted fraudulently. Such a clause can only have effect for defects of which the seller was genuinely unaware (Court of Cassation HGK, E. 2014/1401, K. 2016/1060).
• Absolute Invalidity in Consumer Sales: If the seller is a car dealer or a commercial enterprise, any waiver clause limiting consumer rights under the TKHK is void under the mandatory rules of law protecting the consumer.

Represented Qualities (Undertakings): Statements made by the seller in WhatsApp messages, in the text of an online classified ad or orally, such as “my car is fault-free”, “the engine runs like clockwork”, “servicing has just been done”, constitute represented qualities binding on the seller within the meaning of Article 219 TBK. In a case where a vehicle sold with an online listing describing it as “completely fault-free and accident-free” later turned out to have repainted parts and hidden damage, the Court of Cassation ordered a refund of the price (Court of Cassation 19th Civil Chamber, E. 2017/1898, K. 2018/4043).

6. Typical Types of Defects and the Settled Approach of the Court of Cassation (Odometer Tampering, Total-Loss Record, Paint)

The types of defect most frequently encountered in second-hand vehicle sales in the case law of the Court of Cassation, and the legal consequences attached to them, can be summarised as follows:

Type of Defect	Legal Nature and Court of Cassation Approach	Precedent of the Court of Cassation
Odometer Rollback (TR: kilometre düşürme / DE: Tachomanipulation / RU: Скручивание пробега)	A latent defect. The seller is liable to the buyer even if the seller did not personally roll back the odometer.	Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/13580, K. 2019/691; Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/25258, K. 2019/10215
Odometer Fraud by a Car Dealer	A professional dealer is deemed to know what it ought to know; it is grossly at fault, and the defence that the buyer missed the notice period is not heard.	Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, E. 2018/506, K. 2020/3289
Total-Loss / Heavy Damage Record (TR: pert / ağır hasar kaydı / DE: Totalschaden / RU: Тотальный ущерб)	A latent defect. The buyer has no obligation to research Tramer or insurance records in advance.	Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/1507, K. 2023/3209
An Inaccurate Prior Inspection Report	Together with the seller, the inspection company that issued an untrue report may also be held jointly and severally liable under the rules on tort.	Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2022/6339, K. 2022/8103
Paint Peeling Caused by Manufacturing	Paint flaking not caused by the user is a latent defect and gives rise to compensation for loss of value of the vehicle.	Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/5181, K. 2026/3245

Mileage and Engine Number Discrepancies:
An inconsistency between the mileage on the vehicle’s display and the mileage data in TÜVTÜRK roadworthiness inspection records, exhaust emission measurements and authorised service history, or a mismatch between the engine number written in the registration certificate and the block on the vehicle, is indisputable evidence of a latent defect. Care should be taken that the mileage written on the notarial registration document is exactly the same as the actual reading; a photograph of the instrument panel should be taken at the time of sale to keep a record.

The “Minor Defect” Distinction for New Vehicles:
A consumer who buys a brand-new vehicle has the highest legitimate expectations. The Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has held that a person who paid the full price for a new vehicle cannot be expected to accept the vehicle even if the defect is minor (Court of Cassation HGK, E. 2017/2907, K. 2017/1402). By contrast, in a second-hand vehicle that is 10–15 years old and has exceeded 300,000 kilometres, normal wear and tear (TR: olağan yıpranma / DE: Gewöhnlicher Verschleiß / RU: Естественный износ) of metals and gaskets is to be expected and does not in itself constitute a defect; the legal dispute centres on whether the wear goes beyond what can reasonably be expected of a vehicle of that age and mileage.

7. The Two-Year Limitation Period and the Exception for the Seller’s Gross Fault / Fraud

Under Article 231/1 TBK, even if the defect in the vehicle was discovered later or is a latent defect, claims arising from defects are, as a rule, time-barred on the expiry of 2 years from the date of transfer and delivery of the vehicle to the buyer (in consumer transactions, this period is also 2 years under Article 12 TKHK). The most critical point here is that the 2-year limitation period starts to run not from the moment the defect is discovered but from the date on which the vehicle was delivered.

The Exception for Gross Fault and Fraud (Limitation Not Running):
If the seller is grossly at fault in transferring the vehicle in a defective state or has fraudulently concealed the defect, the seller can by no means benefit from this favourable 2-year limitation period provided by law (Article 231/2 TBK). In that case, the general limitation period of 10 years applies. Consequently, before ruling on the limitation defence raised by the defendant, the court is obliged to investigate of its own motion whether the seller was grossly at fault; dismissing the case on limitation grounds without carrying out this investigation is a ground for reversal (Court of Cassation 19th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/15925, K. 2018/1064; Court of Cassation HGK, E. 2021/442, K. 2022/1772).

The Limits of the Exception: Gross fault cannot be accepted on the basis of assumptions. Indeed, in the case of an engine failure that occurred after the vehicle had been used without problems for 4 years and 110,000 kilometres, it was held that there could be no question of fraud or gross fault on the part of the seller and that the 2-year limitation period had expired (Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/6859, K. 2025/4421). However, deliberately rolling back the odometer, concealing heavy damage, deceiving the airbag system with a resistor, or sealing a crack in the engine block with temporary chemicals are indisputably regarded as gross fault and fraud.

8. Burden of Proof: Defect or User Error? (Preservation of Evidence and the Expert Report)

The outcome of lawsuits concerning complex mechanical failures of the engine, gearbox, differential or turbo depends to a great extent on the technical expert examination ordered by the court. When the seller raises a defence of misuse (TR: kullanım hatası savunması / DE: Einwand des Bedienungsfehlers / RU: Возражение о нарушении правил эксплуатации) in the proceedings, such as “the failure was not caused by me; the buyer mistreated the vehicle, put it in the wrong gear or overloaded it”, the court must have a panel of experts consisting of qualified mechanical engineers examine, with separate technical reasoning, both whether the defect exists and whether the failure was caused by driving errors. Judgments rendered after an incomplete investigation without this examination are reversed by the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Court of Cassation HGK, E. 2017/898, K. 2021/88).

Typical situations in which the Court of Cassation has accepted the seller’s user-error defence:

• Dismissal of the case after it was established that an automatic gearbox failure resulted from the buyer’s incorrect use and from the gearbox being left without fluid/oil following unauthorised intervention (Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/5336, K. 2024/1789).
• An expert report finding that a turbo and diesel particulate filter (DPF) failure resulted not from a manufacturing defect or a defect at the time of delivery but from poor-quality fuel and incorrect engine-speed use (Court of Cassation 13th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/4152, K. 2017/7693).
• Overheating and ovalisation of the cylinder liners being attributed to the user in view of the period of use and the service data (Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2024/3112, K. 2025/2266).

The Limits of the User-Error Defence:
The buyer’s use of the vehicle in demanding conditions does not in itself release the seller. If the expert finds that the strain triggering the failure would not have caused such destruction in a healthy engine, and that the real root cause of the failure was metal fatigue/wear in the block or the cooling system that had begun before delivery, liability is placed on the seller. In the case study described in the introduction, the expert panel likewise characterised the off-road use merely as a secondary “trigger” and the internal engine wear as the “real cause”.

The Importance of Obtaining a Court Preservation of Evidence before Repair:
Under Article 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), preservation of evidence is the most strategic step in the case. If a buyer whose vehicle has broken down has it dismantled and repaired at a private workshop without applying to the competent court (the Alanya Duty Civil Court of Peace) for a determination, the worn/broken parts may be lost and the expert appointed by the court will have to prepare a hypothetical report based only on the repair invoice and the parties’ abstract statements. Even if this does not automatically cause the case to be lost, it very seriously weakens its evidential strength and gives the defendant seller a strong line of defence (Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/1036, K. 2024/4227).

9. Buying and Selling Used Vehicles in and around Alanya, and Special Notes for Foreigners

Alanya, the thriving commercial and tourism centre of the Mediterranean region, together with its neighbouring districts Manavgat and Gazipaşa, is among the areas with the highest circulation of second-hand cars, commercial vehicles, motorcycles and 4×4 vehicles used for safari/tourism. Some local dynamics that increase the risk of legal disputes in vehicle sales in the region are as follows:

• Notarial Transactions of Resident Foreigners: Foreigners who are citizens of the Russian Federation, Germany, Kazakhstan and the European Union and who live in Alanya, Mahmutlar, Kargıcak, Konaklı and Avsallar buy second-hand vehicles in large numbers. In transfers carried out at notaries through a sworn translator, foreign buyers may remain unaware of hidden damage in the vehicle because the translator does not explain the standard-form clauses in sufficient detail. To prevent foreign buyers from losing their rights, it is essential that checks of the chassis and engine numbers and independent inspection processes are carried out professionally.
• Hot Climate, Air Conditioning and Engine Overheating Risks: The high summer temperatures in Antalya and Alanya immediately cause engine overheating and cylinder head deformation in vehicles with a latent defect in the cooling system or radiator. In failures that occur after trips to the highland plateaus (yayla) and mountainous terrain, sellers immediately resort to the defence of “misuse in extreme heat”.
• Former Tourism and Rent-a-Car Vehicles: Offering vehicles that have been used in seasonal rentals or safari tours in the region for sale as a “private family car” after rolling back the odometer or concealing a history of heavy damage is a type of latent defect frequently encountered in practice.
• Competent Courts: In disputes in and around Alanya, the Alanya Civil Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction over sales between private individuals who are not merchants, the Alanya Consumer Court (or the Civil Court of First Instance acting as a Consumer Court) over purchases from car dealers, and the Alanya Civil Court of Peace over urgent determinations of the condition of parts and the engine.

10. Practical Checklist (for Buyers and Sellers)

Party	Stage	Legal Precautions and Steps to Take
CHECKLIST FOR BUYERS	1. Before the Sale	Have a comprehensive engine, mechanical, chassis and bodywork check carried out at a TSE-approved, established and independent vehicle inspection service; obtain the report with a wet signature/stamp.
	2. Listing and Statements	Archive screenshots of the seller’s listing, the messages and the seller’s written statements about the vehicle (undertakings within the meaning of Article 219 TBK).
	3. Payment and Registration	Do not pay the purchase price in cash; always send it through a bank, writing “purchase price of vehicle with plate no. …” in the description. Have the real sale price written at the notary.
	4. Notice When a Failure Occurs	As soon as the defect appears, notify the seller without delay by notarial warning letter (duty of notice).
	5. Preservation of Evidence	Before having the vehicle repaired at a private garage, apply to the duty Civil Court of Peace for preservation of evidence under Article 400 HMK; keep the old parts that are removed.
	6. Monitoring Deadlines	File your lawsuit without missing the 2-year limitation period running from the date of delivery.
CHECKLIST FOR SELLERS	1. Contract Clauses	Have all local paintwork, replaced parts, past failures and Tramer records you know of written into the contract one by one. Be aware that the “as seen” clause will not protect you against latent defects.
	2. Statements of Quality	Avoid making exaggerated and misleading undertakings such as “zero faults”, “flawless engine”, “no expenses needed” in the listing or in WhatsApp messages.
	3. Recording the Condition	At the time of sale, record the instrument panel (mileage), the exterior and the interior components of the vehicle with date- and time-stamped photographs/videos.
	4. Encourage an Inspection	Insist that the buyer has an inspection carried out; attach a copy of the inspection report to the sale contract.
	5. Defence in the Event of a Lawsuit	If you intend to raise a user-error defence in a lawsuit, submit concrete evidence to the expert regarding the vehicle’s mileage at the time of the failure, the ECU records, the authorised service history and the manner of use.

11. Conclusion and General Assessment

The fundamental principle governing second-hand motor vehicle sales in Turkish law of obligations is that the seller is strictly liable by law for latent defects in the vehicle delivered, even if the seller is not at fault. Neither the fact that the buyer did not have an inspection carried out nor the formulaic standard-form wording in the notarial registration documents such as “I have seen the vehicle in its present condition and approved it” releases the seller from this heavy legal liability.

However, it should not be forgotten that this liability does not provide absolute protection and that the outcome of the dispute is determined by the statutory exceptions: the defect being a patent defect noticeable on a simple inspection, the buyer knowingly buying the vehicle below market value, failure to give notice immediately when the defect appears, the failure resulting from driving and user errors after delivery, and the expiry of the 2-year limitation period from delivery all operate in the seller’s favour. By contrast, cases of gross fault such as the seller tampering with the odometer, concealing heavy damage or acting fraudulently eliminate all of these exceptions and expose the seller to the 10-year general limitation period and liability for full compensation.

For both buyers and sellers, the most critical element of the process is securing the evidence lawfully and without delay, through a court preservation of evidence or professional inspection reports, when a failure occurs. To avoid any loss of rights in your specific dispute, it is advisable to seek professional legal advice from a lawyer.

Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.

Related Search Terms and Legal Concepts: defective performance in vehicle sales Turkey, defective car lawsuit Turkey, second-hand car latent defect Court of Cassation decision, car price reduction proportional method calculation, is a notarial “as seen” car sale valid, odometer rollback latent defect lawsuit, buying a car without inspection Court of Cassation, limitation period for a defective car TBK 231, loss of use compensation for a vehicle, engine failure user error or latent defect, defective car dispute Alanya, used car sale dispute Alanya, Antalya consumer court defective car case, Mahmutlar second-hand car sale dispute, Manavgat car latent defect preservation of evidence.