Feasibility of Generalizing the Provisions Related to Compensations Arising from Unenforceability of Unauthorized Sale to Other Similar Cases

According to Article 391 of the Civil Code and the unified judgments 733-1393/07/15 and 811-1400/01/04 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, if the sold things has been determined as belonging to another, the sale contract is null. Therefore in case of unawareness of the buyer, the vendor must pay the difference through price which is paid as consideration and the actual value of the sold object on the day of sale as compensation in addition to returning the price. The apparent interpretation of the aforementioned provisions limits them to the nullity of the sale contract due to unauthorization regarding the owner's rejection. But firstly it’s good to know that nullity causes damages in other types of contracts rather than sales. Then it should be known that nullity can be caused by reasons differing from the cause of belonging to a third party. Thirdly, must be said that the contract may cause damages not in terms of nullity, but in other types of dissolution. This research aims to answer the question whether it is possible to apply the provisions related to the damage caused by the nullity of unauthorized sale to other cases of nullity and dissolution of all contracts or not? And assuming the answer to the previous question is positive, what are the examples of the implementation of the aforementioned provisions? The collection of information in this research is library-based and the method of presenting is analytical.