1. Carrier's Obligation to Deliver Goods Within the Carriage Period

The carriage period refers to "the time required for the carrier to perform their contractual carriage obligation." In other words, this period is called the "delivery period." The carrier is obliged to deliver the goods to the desired location at the end of the agreed period, or, if no period was agreed upon, within a reasonable period.

The carriage period begins when the carrier takes possession of the goods and ends when the carrier delivers them to the desired location. The start of the carriage period may also be a different date agreed upon by the parties, rather than the moment the goods are received.

In carriage contracts, parties can specify a carriage period if they wish, but since there's no such obligation, they can leave the period open in the contract without specifying any date. Although not explicitly stating a date in the contract doesn't invalidate it, it doesn't change the fact that the carriage must take place within certain periods. In cases where there's no clause regarding the carriage period in the contract, the carrier isn't granted an unlimited period, and the carriage must be performed within a reasonable time.

The law doesn't provide a method or information on how to determine or calculate a reasonable period. When determining a reasonable period, the following factors should be considered: the type of vehicle carrying the goods, the type of goods, the quantity and tonnage of the goods, the route of carriage, the sender's instructions and directives to the carrier, and geographical conditions.

Additionally, for partial shipments (i.e., when loads from different customers are carried in the same vehicle, also known as less-than-truckload shipping), the time spent collecting all the goods should also be taken into account when calculating the relevant period.

At this point, the prevailing view is that only the initial conditions of the journey in the carriage event should be considered when calculating the reasonable period. Events that occur during the carriage itself are not considered in this situation.

2. Damages Arising from Delay

For the carrier to be held liable for damage, loss, or late delivery of goods, the primary prerequisite is the occurrence of damage. For liability for damage to be discussed, damage must first occur. If no damage has occurred, there will be no legal liability for the carrier.

Damages resulting from delayed delivery are generally related to property damages. For example, these could include the consignee having to pay a penalty due to late delivery of the goods, a decrease in the market value of the transported goods, an increase in customs duties, the consignee's inability to fulfill commitments made to third parties, or extra expenses, effort, and labor incurred to procure an equivalent of the goods to avoid indemnification obligations.

In damages arising from carriage, the "principle of damage apportionment" has been accepted. If the fault or conduct of the sender or consignee contributed to the damage, the judge will exercise their discretion to apportion the damage appropriately and fairly when determining compensation.

Material damage is not limited to actual damage that occurs; it also includes lost profits and all other potential economic losses. Examples of damages that can be claimed due to delay include: a decrease in the market value of the goods due to late delivery, an increase in storage or customs expenses, production losses or reductions if the goods are for production, penalties paid due to the inability to perform agreements with third parties, loss of earnings, loss of customers or market due to the goods not reaching a fair, and increased costs for transporting the goods.

In doctrine, there are debates about whether moral damages can be claimed within the scope of the carrier's liability. The Court of Cassation tends to reject moral damage claims, citing that a mere breach of a carriage contract doesn't constitute an attack on moral personality.

In addition to claims for damages, even if there's no damage in case of late delivery, the carriage fee is reduced proportionally to the delay period. The rule of reduction is not tied to the existence of damage. In this respect, a reduction in the carriage fee is considered a type of penalty clause. However, if the carrier proves that they exercised all due diligence, there will be no reduction in the carriage fee.

3. Carrier's Limited Liability

The "principle of limited liability" is considered one of the cornerstones of carriage law. The main reason for adopting this principle and limiting liability is to make the carriage business attractive by minimizing and making the risks faced by the carrier more calculable. By reducing risk, it also becomes possible to determine more reasonable carriage fees for those wishing to have their goods transported.

The carrier's liability for delay is limited to three times the carriage fee under Article 882 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK). Even if the claimant proves all their damages caused by the delay, the compensation amount payable cannot exceed three times this amount. If the parties haven't determined the carriage fee, the judge will set the upper limit, and if the carriage fee was determined in kind, they will also determine its monetary value.

4. Exception to Limited Liability

Even though limited liability is the main rule in carriage law, if the conditions and circumstances are met in a specific case, the rights holder may opt for the carrier's unlimited liability. In this case, the carrier may be held liable for claims exceeding three times the carriage fee in case of delay in carriage.

The regulations regarding the limits of liability and the inability to escape liability are set forth in TTK Article 886. Accordingly, the carrier or their assistants, for whose acts and omissions they are responsible as if they were their own, cannot benefit from liability limitations if it is proven that the damage was caused by an act or omission committed intentionally or recklessly and with the awareness of the likelihood of such damage occurring.

5. Circumstances Excluding Liability

The circumstances for exemption from liability found in the Turkish Commercial Code are adopted as a softened form of liability. The circumstances under which the carrier's liability for delay will cease are regulated in TTK Article 876 (general cases) and TTK Article 878 (special cases).

That is to say, the carrier will not be held liable for delay if the outcome occurred due to reasons that the carrier could not prevent or avoid, even if they exercised the utmost diligence.

A carrier, being a merchant due to their involvement in carriage operations, is expected to act with the diligence of a prudent merchant. The diligence expected from a prudent merchant should be greater than the average diligence expected from a normal person. The TTK adopts an even higher standard, stating "highest diligence," which is higher than the diligence of a prudent merchant. In this regard, it becomes quite difficult for the carrier to provide proof of exemption, thus approaching strict liability.

While TTK Article 876 generally qualifies as a circumstance for exemption from liability, it is also stipulated that the carrier will be exempt from liability if the delay can be linked to one of the special circumstances listed in TTK Article 878. The burden of proving that the delay is linked to one of these circumstances still falls on the carrier. These circumstances are listed below and are considered exhaustive, meaning they cannot be expanded upon:

a) The use of an open-top vehicle or loading on deck in accordance with the contract or custom. b) Insufficient packaging by the sender. c) Processing, loading, or unloading of goods by the sender or consignee. d) The inherent nature of the goods, which easily causes damage, especially through breakage, rust, spoilage, drying, leakage, or ordinary shrinkage. e) Insufficient labeling of packages to be carried by the sender. f) Carriage of live animals. g) Cases where provisions in the Customs Law dated 27/10/1999 and numbered 4458, and other laws and regulations, justify the carrier's exemption from liability.

TTK Article 854 protects the rights of the sender and consignee by stating that clauses excluding liability placed in contracts will be invalid. It is clearly stated that the liability imposed on the carrier by the TTK cannot be mitigated in advance by contract. No provision is made regarding contracts to be made between the parties after the damage has occurred. Therefore, if the sender becomes aware of the damage after it has occurred, any agreements to exclude liability made with the carrier after the damage occurred will also be considered valid.

6. Compensation Lawsuit to be Filed Due to Carrier's Liability

A carrier who cannot perform their contractual obligation and cannot benefit from any exemption from liability will have to compensate for the damage caused by the delay of the goods.

A lawsuit for compensation can be filed against the carrier who fails to compensate for damages arising from delay in carriage. Before filing a lawsuit, the prerequisites for the lawsuit must be met.

7. Obligation to Apply for Mediation

Pursuant to TTK Article 4/1 (a), "Regardless of whether the parties are merchants, civil lawsuits arising from matters stipulated in this Law are considered commercial lawsuits."

Also, according to the first paragraph of TTK Article 5/A, "...in commercial lawsuits regarding claims, compensation... which are for a certain amount of money, applying to a mediator before filing a lawsuit is a prerequisite for the lawsuit."

In accordance with the provisions of the relevant article, carriage matters, being regulated in the TTK, are considered absolute commercial lawsuits and are subject to the mandatory mediation process.