This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services
Translation
Expertise
Specializes in:
Folklore
Linguistics
Poetry & Literature
Media / Multimedia
Textiles / Clothing / Fashion
Names (personal, company)
Idioms / Maxims / Sayings
Law: Contract(s)
Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright
Law (general)
Also works in:
Law: Taxation & Customs
Patents
Accounting
Anthropology
Cinema, Film, TV, Drama
Human Resources
Management
Philosophy
Social Science, Sociology, Ethics, etc.
Agriculture
IT (Information Technology)
More
Less
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 1
Turkish to English: File General field: Law/Patents Detailed field: Law: Contract(s)
Source text - Turkish Eğer davacının iddia ettiği gibi, "davalı, keyfi olarak, yani teknik açıdan gerekli olmadığı halde, selden zarar görmeyen giriş katındaki mağazaları (ve dolayısıyla davacının. mağazasını) da_kapsayacak şekilde_ bir bütün olarak alışverişi merkezini hizmete kapadıysa ya da keyfi olarak kapamamışsa bile, hasarın giderilmesi için gereken süreyi keyfi olarak uzattıysa -ki bu hususları ispat etmek külfeti davacı/kiracıya aittir (MK. md.6), davalının bu davranışı kusurlu olarak kira sozleşmesinden doğan kullandırma borcuna aykırı bir davranışı teşkil eder ve bu nedenle de, davacı/kiracı, alışveriş merkezinin gereksiz yere (keyfi olarak) kapalı kaldığı süre boyunca uğradığı maddi zararların tazminini davalı/kiralayandan talep etmeye hak kazanır (BK. md.250/f.2 veya BK. md.96).
Ne var ki, kanaatimizce dava dosyasmda şu anda var olan deliller itibariyle, davacı/kiracı, bu hususların hiç birinin varlığını ispat edebilmiş değildir. Davacının bu iddiasının ispatına yönelik olarak "teknik bilirkişi incelemesi yaptırılıp yaptmlmaması konusunda da takdir tamamen Yüce Mahkemeye aittir.
•
Bu arada şu hususu da belirtelim ki, her ne kadar taraflar arasındaki sözleşmenin 11 'inci maddesinin son paragrafında yer alan, "KIRALAYAN, Mecur'un bir yangın, su basması,, tabii afet vs. neticesinde ilgili tahsis cihetine uygun olmaması, halinde, binayı; yeniden inşa ettirmek hususunda hiçbir mesuliyet altında olmayacaktır. Mecur'un yeniden inşa ettirilmemesi halinde işbu Sozleşme'ye son verilir" hükmü de, dava dosyasında §U anda var olan deliller itibariyle, davalının sorumluluğunu kanaatimizce ortadan kaldırmaz. Zira bu hüküm uyarınca davalı/kiralayanın sorumluluğunun ortadan kalkması için, söz konusu sel baskını nedeniyle, AVM'nin, davacının mecurunu da kapsayacak şekilde bir bütün olarak hizmete kapatılmasının
teknik açıdan zorunlu hale gelmiş olması ve dolayısıyla da davacı/kiracıya
kiralanmış olan mecurun (mağazanın) ilgili tahsis amacına uygun şekilde davacıya kullandırılamamasının da teknik açıdan zorunlu hale gelmiş olması gerekir -ki bu hususu ispat külfeti davalı/kiralayana düşer (MK.md.6)-. Dava konusu olayda ise, kanaatimizce, davalı/kiralayan bu hususu ispat edememiştir. Davalı/kiralayanın bu iddiasının ispatına yönelik olarak "teknik bilirkişi" incelemesi yaptırılıp yaptırılmaması konusunda da takdir tamamen Yüce Mahkemeye aittir.
Translation - English If by chance as it was claimed by plaintiff; “If defendant arbitrarily, in other words, not required technically closed down the stores to the service completely which had not been damaged during the flood on the first floor (including plaintiff’s store) or even not closed down arbitrarily, if kept the term arbitrarily longer than required, -which expenses to prove these attitudes is the duty of plaintiff/renter. (C.L. Article 6)-, this action of plaintiff constitutes faultily an illegal action to usage of debt originated from the rental contract, and with this reason, plaintiff/renter has the right to charge compensation of loss from defendant/owner for the term shopping centre (arbitrarily) closed down unnecessarily(Code of Obligation, article 250/ Para : 2 or C.O. Article 96)
But, to our opinion up to know the proofs take place in the file of suit have not been proved yet by the plaintiff/leaseholder. To prove the claim of plaintiff’s whether to assign “a technical expert” for inspection or not is completely your esteemed court’s discretion.
By the way we also would like to indicate this matter, although the 11th article take place at the last paragraph of lease contract signed between parties; verdict “in the end of flooding or fire, natural disaster etc. if rented place is not suitable to its purpose any more and about the reconstruction of the building OWNER will no way be held responsible for the attitude. In case of having the rented place reconstructed, the contract is terminated” takes place as one of the evidences in the suit file at present, to our opinion, does not abolish the liability of defendant. Because in accordance with this verdict; to abolish the liability of defendant/owner, for mentioned flooding, technically obliged to close down S.C. completely-including the store rented by plaintiff, too, to the service, and consequently it has to be obligation not to be able to let the place (store) rented use for its purpose of leaseholder/plaintiff, which trouble to prove the attitude is the duty of defendant/owner (C.L. Article 6). Case subject of the suit, to our opinion, defendant/owner has not proved the matter yet. In order to prove the claim of defendant/owner whether to assign “a technical expert” for inspection or not is completely your esteemed court’s discretion.
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 21. Registered at ProZ.com: Apr 2023.
Between1994 and 1998 studied English Language and Literature Dpt. Worked for an international transportation company, directed shipments in Europe and Turkey. Changed the field and started to work as an English teacher (23 yrs. Prepared pupils for English Dpt. of universities. I am interested in Literature and technology. While teaching, read various texts from different fields. On the other hand, dealt with translation from different fields except medicine...
Expertise