On the other hand, the decisions of the Court of Appeal also state that if allegations are made by third parties, the simulation can be supported by all satisfactory evidence. “D. Interpretation of Contracts, Simulation To decide the nature or terms of a contract, the true intent and mutual consent of the parties must be taken into account, in defiance of any statement used either by mistake or to conceal the true intent of the parties. 2. Relative – the actual transaction is hidden; The parties do not conceal their true agreement; The parties bind themselves to their effective agreement if they do not harm third parties or are not assigned for retaliation, law, morals, etc. If the concealed contract is legal, it is entirely applicable provided it has all the essential conditions: consent, opposition and cause. For third parties without notice, the apparent contract applies to purposes that are useful to them. Two types of simulated transactions are accepted according to Turkish legal doctrine; “absolute simulation” and “relative simulation.” Absolute simulation means an agreement between the contracting parties to deceive third parties, to obtain any advantage, as if there were a real and real underlying agreement between the parties. With respect to the relative simulation, this means an agreement between the parties to conceal the actual (underlying) agreement.
As noted above, both parties to the simulated transaction and third parties who were confronted with the simulated transaction can, in good faith, argue in court for such a dubious agreement and seek damages. However, the parties are required to prove their assertion. A person bound by the terms and obligations of the contract mentioned in it cannot claim the simulation as a defence against a third party based on such recognition.” For the known third parties of the simulation, they do not acquire a better right to the simulated contract than the original parts. In addition to the nullity of the simulated agreement, the Court of Appeal, in its decision of 24.02.2010 and under the number E. 2010/6-94, also has the nullity of the agreement; K. 2010/100[iv] also indicated that the undercover transaction is valid when the general and essential conditions of validity of an agreement are met (capacity of the parties, exchange of consents, non-opposition to public order, etc.). Both the Court of Appeal and the Swiss Federal Court have upheld this point of law, with their various judicial decisions. Indeed, the Court of Appeal, in its decision of 16.06.2010 and e. 2010/1-275, was next; K.
2010/327[ii] and the Swiss Federal Court[iii] declare that the simulated agreement is not valid in the proven existence of a simulated transaction. Section 19 of the NTCOO defines the principle of treaty interpretation and the case where simulation or collision cannot be relied upon as a defence. The title of the article is different from section 18 of the TCOO, in which the new title mentions simulation transactions. Simulation is a subject that is highly debated both in Turkish legal doctrine and in practice, while there is no other provision than Article 18 of the Law.