This guide examines Reservation deposit specifically through the lens of “Source Freshness Review”, using the official rule and evidence that belong to this topic rather than expanding into adjacent subjects.
Official facts that control the topic
The first substantive rule for “Source Freshness Review — Reservation deposit” is this: A reservation payment or kapora should not be interpreted from its label alone; its legal effect depends on the agreement—whether it is part-payment, earnest money, security or a conditionally refundable amount.
Applied specifically through the “Source Freshness Review” lens to Reservation deposit, the official position is more precise: The Turkish Code of Obligations distinguishes contractual payment concepts, so the written terms should state when the amount is refunded, when it is credited to the price and what follows if either party withdraws. Before a material payment, the property, seller, amount, refund conditions and deadline should be identified; a receipt may prove that money moved without resolving who is entitled to keep it.
What this review changes
Source freshness for Reservation deposit is not satisfied merely because a website is official; the particular information must still apply to the period and facts on which the decision will rely. An old rule may be historically accurate yet unusable today.
Check the publication or verification date, then refresh these items for the current property and period: amount/date, recipient, reserved property, legal character stated in the agreement, refund/retention conditions, final-contract deadline and how the payment credits to price. If a figure, tariff or deadline changes by year, use the correct year’s version.
Documents and data that must reconcile
For “Source Freshness Review”, the key evidence is: amount/date, recipient, reserved property, legal character stated in the agreement, refund/retention conditions, final-contract deadline and how the payment credits to price
Scope boundary
Because this record is limited to “Source Freshness Review”, its boundary matters: A reservation payment does not transfer real-estate title and does not replace a formal sale or notarised sale-promise instrument.
Official source
Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098
Source-freshness review for a reservation deposit
A reservation deposit must be reviewed from the current contract language and the current law, not from the marketing label attached to the payment. Under Articles 177 and 178 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, money handed over when a contract is concluded may perform different legal functions. Article 177 treats money given at conclusion, unless the parties or custom indicate otherwise, as evidence that the contract was concluded and provides for its deduction from the principal performance. Article 178 separately regulates an agreed withdrawal payment: the party who gave it may withdraw by leaving it, while the party who received it may withdraw by returning twice the amount. A fresh review therefore starts by identifying which rule the actual wording supports; it must not describe every “deposit” as automatically refundable or automatically forfeitable.
The evidence set should include the latest signed reservation form, offer or preliminary agreement, the payment instruction and bank receipt, the identity and authority of the recipient, the exact property reference, and any message that changes the refund, cancellation or conversion-to-purchase-price terms. If an intermediary receives the money, confirm the current authority chain and the named collection account rather than relying on a logo or sales message. If the property, buyer, seller, price or deadline has changed since the reservation document was signed, the old document may no longer answer the present transaction and should be refreshed or formally reconciled.
Finally, date the legal sources used and separate legal rules from commercial promises. A seller may voluntarily offer broader refund rights than the statutory default, but that promise must be evidenced in the governing document. Conversely, a short receipt saying only “kapora” is not enough to infer a complete cancellation regime. The freshness conclusion should state what document currently controls, what the payment is legally intended to do, who is authorised to hold it, what event converts or returns it, and which unresolved contradiction would block further payment.