Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 22:37:21 GMT -5
However, mere sadness and disappointment due to the breakup of the engagement is not sufficient to award non-pecuniary damages. Natural distress and violation of interests are not taken as basis for non-pecuniary damages. Because, in order for non-pecuniary compensation to be awarded, the personal rights of the fiancee making the request must have been excessively damaged. This exorbitant damage must be proven based on concrete events and reasons... In the concrete case; Y..E.., the plaintiff of the main case, broke off the engagement. Although the plaintiff Y.. E.. claimed that he had to break off the engagement as a result of the faulty actions of the defendant (plaintiff of the merged file) Emine, the defendant could not properly prove Emine's fault and that her personal rights were exorbitantly damaged due to the breaking of the engagement. .” (Supreme Court 3rd HD, 17.03.2015, 2014/18045 E., 2015/4348 K.).
Regarding the dispute subject to appeal; The defendant France Telegram Number Data and his family asked, "How do you spend time with a widow?" It is understood that they reacted like this and refused to meet with the plaintiff and broke off the engagement. In this case, it must be accepted that the defendant is at fault in breaking off the engagement. However, mere sadness and disappointment due to the breakup of the engagement is not sufficient to award non-pecuniary damages. Natural distress and violation of interests are not taken as basis for non-pecuniary damages. Because, in order for non-pecuniary compensation to be awarded, the personal rights of the fiancee making the request must have been excessively damaged. This exorbitant damage must be proven based on concrete events and reasons... In the concrete case; Y..E.., the plaintiff of the main case, broke off the engagement.
Although the plaintiff Y.. E.. claimed that he had to break off the engagement as a result of the faulty actions of the defendant (plaintiff of the merged file) Emine, the defendant could not properly prove Emine's fault and that her personal rights were exorbitantly damaged due to the breaking of the engagement. .” (Supreme Court 3rd HD, 17.03.2015, 2014/18045 E., 2015/4348 K.). Regarding the dispute subject to appeal; The defendant and his family asked, "How do you spend time with a widow?" It is understood that they reacted like this and refused to meet with the plaintiff and broke off the engagement. In this case, it must be accepted that the defendant is at fault in breaking off the engagement.
Regarding the dispute subject to appeal; The defendant France Telegram Number Data and his family asked, "How do you spend time with a widow?" It is understood that they reacted like this and refused to meet with the plaintiff and broke off the engagement. In this case, it must be accepted that the defendant is at fault in breaking off the engagement. However, mere sadness and disappointment due to the breakup of the engagement is not sufficient to award non-pecuniary damages. Natural distress and violation of interests are not taken as basis for non-pecuniary damages. Because, in order for non-pecuniary compensation to be awarded, the personal rights of the fiancee making the request must have been excessively damaged. This exorbitant damage must be proven based on concrete events and reasons... In the concrete case; Y..E.., the plaintiff of the main case, broke off the engagement.
Although the plaintiff Y.. E.. claimed that he had to break off the engagement as a result of the faulty actions of the defendant (plaintiff of the merged file) Emine, the defendant could not properly prove Emine's fault and that her personal rights were exorbitantly damaged due to the breaking of the engagement. .” (Supreme Court 3rd HD, 17.03.2015, 2014/18045 E., 2015/4348 K.). Regarding the dispute subject to appeal; The defendant and his family asked, "How do you spend time with a widow?" It is understood that they reacted like this and refused to meet with the plaintiff and broke off the engagement. In this case, it must be accepted that the defendant is at fault in breaking off the engagement.