ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

57 COMMERCIAL LAW the procurement of the goods and services, the thirty day period shall commence with the delivery of the goods or services to the debtor. Another possibility that is stipulated under Article 1530 of the TCC , with regard to the commencement of the thirty day period, is where a procedure is foreseen under the law for the acceptance and the review of the goods. According to the related provision, in the event that the debtor receives the invoice, or the equivalent payment request on the date of acceptance or review, or before this date, the debtor shall be in default at the end of the thirty day period that follows the date of occurrence of the acceptance or review. In the said provision, the period that will be stipulated in the contract by the parties, in relation to the acceptation and review is limited, as well. In this scope, the acceptance and review period shall be a maximum of thirty days in the event that a review or acceptance procedure is stipulated in the contract. If a period that is greater than thirty days is prescribed for the review in the contract, the issue as to whether this period constitutes unfairness to the detriment of the creditor shall be taken into account. If the parties agree on a period for the review that is more than thirty days, it is required that this period shall not constitute a grossly unfair situation for the creditor. Otherwise, the period for the review shall be deemed to be thirty days, even if it is stipulated as a longer period in the contract. That being said, it is accepted that the thirty days stipulated, above, regarding the default of the debtor, shall not be evaluated as a required minimum waiting period from the default of the debtor. According to the view that is accepted in the doctrine, after the debt becomes due, the creditor should be able to push the debtor into de- fault without waiting for the thirty days to expire from the receipt of the invoice by the debtor, on the condition that a notice in default is sent. Indeed, granting the debtor an obligatory thirty day period for payment, although the debt is due, contradicts the purpose of the pro- tection of the creditor 3 . 3 Çağlayan, p. 229.