TTK Article 94

The TTK is Türkiye's commercial code, and Article 94 is the provision most often quoted at the bottom of a reconciliation letter: the statement carries a line noting the one-month objection window and stating that silence will be treated as acceptance. The framework behind the rule is the current-account relationship, in which two trading parties stop claiming individual items and instead roll them into a single running account with a carried-forward balance. What the article deems accepted is that figure and not the correspondence around it: the balance struck when the account is closed at the end of a period and set out in the statement sent to the other side. The month runs from the date that statement is received. A reconciliation letter therefore does not fall inside the article automatically; the nature of the underlying relationship and the nature of the document decide that.

The decisive condition is that the current-account relationship rests on a written contract. Article 89 of the same code requires written form for a current-account contract; where no written contract exists, failing to answer a statement may not by itself produce acceptance. Form matters on the answering side too. The article names the channels through which an objection is raised — a notary, registered mail, telegram, or a written document carrying a secure electronic signature — and ordinary email is not among them, so whether an emailed objection produces the statutory effect is open to argument. The same point is worth keeping in mind for how the statement itself travels: a read receipt on an ordinary email helps show delivery, but it does not stand in for a formal channel. Three documents are therefore kept together in a letter process: the contract, the content of the statement, and proof of dispatch and delivery. If there is no record of who was sent what balance, to which address and on which date, it becomes hard to show that the period ever started. Assessing the legal effect calls for professional advice; what matters here is the document discipline around the reconciliation itself.

The most common misreading is to treat the article as an accounting rule. It closes no gap in the ledger and corrects no entry, and the counterparty's silence does not make an invoice in transit or a missing payment disappear. The second misreading is to assume acceptance settles everything; claims of error or fraud sit outside it. Knowing why a difference exists before the statement goes out is a far firmer footing than relying on silence.