The Territory of Compensation in the Light of the Uniform Vote of Judicial Procedure No. 733 of the Supreme Court

In a transaction with another’s property, when the owner returns to his property and discovers the corruption (invalidity) of the transaction, the seller is obliged to return the price to the customer. In the meantime, the responsibility of the seller in order to guarantee the guarantee (responsible) for claims in connection with the ownership (guarantor for compensation in cases which the object of a sale belongs another person) and compensation of the indemnities incurred to the ignorant customer raises the question of what criteria and standard are there to calculate the compensation for the devaluation of the price? The uniform vote of judicial procedure No. 733 of the Supreme Court is an important step in responding to this legal problem, but there is still disagreement over the scope of compensation for the subject of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Some votes consider the criterion of compensation in the seller’s obligation to return the price based on the rate announced by the Central Bank, while others consider the seller to be obliged to compensate the value of the seller on the day of object (price at the time of delivery). This research intends to evaluate the mentioned decision analytically and in short, it can be definitely said that the compensation of money inflation according to the criteria announced by the Central Bank is able to compensate damages and the imposition of an obligation beyond it is contrary to the basis of guarantee (responsible) for claims in connection with the ownership (guarantor for compensation in cases which the object of a sale belongs another person).