The concept of changing the reason for issuance of the promissory note in the light of the Court of Cassation decisions and legal consequence

A bond, which is regulated under the Turkish Commercial Code and contains an unconditional promise of payment, may contain some optional entries in addition to the mandatory entries regarding its validity. As a matter of fact, although they do not have any effect on the validity of the bond, in practice, it is observed that the bond may contain price entries such as 'malen', 'nakden' or optional entries such as 'for collateral'. Although the aforementioned entries do not have any effect on the validity of the bond, these entries, which indicate the reason for the issuance of the bond, have a special feature in terms of the burden of proof in case the contrary is claimed in the proceedings. The concept of 'changing the reason of issue', which has developed with the practice of the Court of Cassation and is used as a criterion in determining the burden of proof, means claiming the contrary of the reason of issue in the bond. In the event that a declaration is made contrary to these records in the bond, the reason for the issuance of the bond is changed, and the one who changes the reason for the issuance of the bond shall bear the burden of proof. The reason for issuance of the bond can be changed unilaterally or bilaterally. In the event that the reason for the issuance of the bond is changed bilaterally, the burden of proof remains on the issuing debtor. According to the practice of changing the reason of issue, the party who has the burden of proof may prove his/her claim with conclusive evidence as a rule. Commercial books are also conclusive evidence, provided that they fulfil the relevant conditions in the law. The burden of proof determined by the Court of Cassation through the practice of changing the reason of issue conflicts with the general principles of the law of evidence. Since the reason of issue on the bond is important in terms of the law of proof, the burden of proof can be determined according to the general principles of the law of proof without the need to change the reason of issue. In this study, the concept of changing the reason of issue is explained in the light of the practices of the Court of Cassation, and the problems in determining the burden of proof are pointed out. An attempt has been made to find solutions to the problems identified.