Indemnification of third party damage in the narrow sense

Debt relations are, as a rule, relations of a relative character. Because of this situation, third parties who are not parties to this relationship cannot, as a rule, incur debts or acquire rights due to the debt relationship in question. This rule, which applies to debt relations arising both from the legal transaction and the law, determines the circle of persons who can claim compensation, supported by the creditor's interest dogma or the theory of objective unlawfulness. Indeed, the dogma of the creditor's interest emphasizes that in cases of breach of a contract, only the creditor who is a party to the contract can recover damages. Again, the objective theory of unlawfulness states that persons whose rights protected by an absolute or special protection norm are not violated cannot make a claim based on the tort. However, in contractual liability, there are some cases where third parties who are not parties to the contract, and in tort, third parties to whom the act is not directed are harmed, and the compensation of this damage is in accordance with equity. Recognizing this problem, the legislator has introduced exceptions to the mentioned principles and softened the rule that third parties cannot be indemnified for damages. As a matter of fact, the principle of relativity of debt relations has been flexed with the contract for the benefit of third parties, and in cases where the will of the parties is in this direction, it is possible to compensate the damages of third parties. However, the exceptions to the basic rule are not limited to this, and new theories have been put forward to solve the problem of indemnification for third party damages. The contract with protective effects towards third parties, which stipulates that third parties who are damaged due to their proximity to the performance may make a claim based on the contract to which they are not a party, constitutes one of the important examples of this situation with the exception it brings to the principle of relativity of debt relations. However, it is not possible to apply the contract for the benefit of the third party, the contract with protective effects towards third parties, or a provision of the law in every case where the third party is damaged. As a matter of fact, in cases where the damage that should occur in the person who is a party to the contract in cases where there is a contract, and in tort, in cases where the damage that should occur in the person to whom the act is directed occurs in a third person who has a legal or actual connection with this person due to special circumstances, generally the aforementioned institutions cannot be applied and legal regulations cannot be benefited from. In such cases, where the damage and the right to claim are separated, the person who has the right to claim does not suffer damage, and the person who suffers damage does not have the right to claim because he is not a party to the debt relationship. At this point, in order to prevent the person who caused the damage by his/her actions from being unjustly relieved from liability, the institution of indemnification of third party damage in the narrow sense was developed, and it was emphasized that the person who is a party to the debt relationship can demand compensation for third party damages by introducing an exception to the dogma of the creditor's interest. In this study, it is accepted that there is an implicit gap in the relevant cases, the dogma of the creditor's interest is limited through teleological reduction, and the institution of indemnification third party damage in the narrow sense is applied. Keywords: The relativity of debt relations, the dogma of the creditor's interest, third party damage, transfer of damage, implicit gap.