NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

123 LAW OF OBLIGATIONS 955, TCO Art. 184). If we revisit the question, will the amendment of Article 24, paragraph (f) of Law No. 5464 apply to the guarantee agreements that go hand-in-hand with the contracts at issue? One can reasonably think that the rationale of the legislator is to rid itself of the requirement to bring parties together; however, from our point of view, the response given to this question is negative. This is because guarantee agreements and, also, suretyship agreements are severable from the underlying contracts even though they usu- ally appear within the provisions of the underlying contracts. These agreements are not the objective essential element of the underlying contracts, and unless parties agreed otherwise, the validity of an un- derlying contract is separate and independent from the validity of a guarantee agreement. As a result, the agreements between debit card and credit card issuers and card holders will be valid without the pres- ence of a guarantee agreement between the parties. In summary, the amendment of Law No. 5464 does not apply to guarantee agreements. As a matter of fact, the legislator merely addressed the underlying contract, and not the guarantee agreements. Conclusion Even though the written form requirement for contracts between debit card and credit card issuers and card holders was abolished by Law No. 7247 coming into force, from our point of view, this regula- tion does not affect the validity of guarantee agreements; the validity of those agreements are subject to the form requirement that is set by the laws specifically designated for guarantee agreements.