Use of Modern Technologies in Textbooking in Primary Schools

Today, it should be the first experience of a child in the education system - a place to test the power of learning. At this stage, it is important to develop activity, independence, maintain cognitive activity and create conditions for the child to enter the world of education, to strengthen his health and emotional characteristics. Today, we are witnessing the development of these qualities of students through the introduction of ICT in the educational process

Use of DNA Barcoding Combined with PCR-SFLP to Authenticate Species in Bison Meat Products

American bison (Bison bison) meat is susceptible to species mislabeling due to its high value and similar appearance to meat from domestic cattle (Bos taurus). DNA barcoding is commonly used to identify animal species. However, as a result of the historical hybridization of American bison and domestic cattle, additional genetic testing is required for species confirmation. The objective of this study was to perform a market survey of bison meat products and verify the species using DNA barcoding combined with polymerase chain reaction-satellite fragment length polymorphism (PCR-SFLP). Bison products (n = 45) were purchased from a variety of retailers. Samples that were positive for domestic cattle with DNA barcoding were further analyzed with PCR-SFLP. DNA barcoding identified bison in 41 products, red deer (Cervus elaphus) in one product, and domestic cattle in three products. PCR-SFLP confirmed the identification of domestic cattle in two samples, while the third sample was identified as bison with ancestral cattle DNA. Overall, mislabeling was detected in 3 of the 45 samples (6.7%). This study revealed that additional DNA testing of species that have undergone historical hybridization provides improved identification results compared to DNA barcoding alone

Legal Thoughts on Determining the Primary Debtor Concerning Promissory Notes Issued Through Authorized Representative of the Company within the Scope of the Decision Dated 23.01.2017 and Numbered 2017/38-2017/444 of the Court of Appeals for the 11th

Bononun mutlak zorunlu unsurlarından birisi de, düzenleyenin imzasıdır. Bazen kanuni bir zorunluluktan, bazen de kişinin iradesinden ötürü bono temsilci aracılığıyla da düzenlenebilir. Dolaylı temsile ilişkin durum haricinde, bu şekilde düzenlenen bonolarda düzenleyen sıfatı, temsil olunana aittir. Ticaret şirketleri ise, iradelerini yetkili organları aracılığıyla ortaya koyabilirler. Ancak ticaret şirketlerinin yetkili organı eliyle düzenlenen bir bonoda, temsil ilişkisinden söz edilemez. Bu senet bizzat ticaret şirketi tarafından düzenlenmiş olarak kabul edilir. Çalışmamıza konu Yargıtay kararında, biri sağ alt köşeye biri de matbu kefil kısmına basılan şirket kaşelerinden yalnızca sağ alt kısımdaki şirket kaşesinin, kaşeyi taşırmadan aynı yetkili temsilci tarafından iki kez imzalanması suretiyle düzenlenen bir bonoda, senette matbu olarak yer alan ödeyecek kısmının, şirketin yetkili temsilcisinin adı ve soyadı yazılarak doldurulduğundan bahisle, yetkili temsilcinin düzenleyen; şirketin ise, avalist olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Oysa, Kanunda aranılan (mutlak) zorunlu unsur, düzenleyenin imzası olduğundan; şirketin yetkili temsilcisi eliyle şirket unvanı altında imzalanan bir bonoda, düzenleyen olarak “şirket” kabul edilmelidir.One of the absolute compulsory elements of the promissory note is the signature of the issuing person. Sometimes_x000D_ due to a legal obligation or sometimes the will of the person, the promissory note can be issued through an authorized_x000D_ representative. Except for the situation related to the term indirect representation, it is the represented person who is_x000D_ deemed to have the legal responsibilities on the promissory note as issuing the instrument if it is issued through a legal_x000D_ representative. Commercial companies use their will through their authorized bodies. However, the term representation_x000D_ cannot be mentioned when a promissory note is issued through the authorized bodies of the commercial companies._x000D_ Instead, this instrument is deemed to be issued directly by the commercial company itself. The decision of the court of_x000D_ appeals, which constitutes the subject of our work, is related to two marks of the company stamp; one of which is located_x000D_ on the right bottom corner of the instrument, and the other one, which is located on the printed designated area for the guarantor. The one which is located on the right bottom corner of the instrument, is signed twice, without_x000D_ exceeding the mark of the stamp. In the context of this very instrument, it is decided upon that the company_x000D_ is the legal person who signs a surety, and the authorized representative of the company is the person who_x000D_ issues the instrument, regarding the fact that the printed designated area, indicating the person who performs_x000D_ the payment, filled with the name and surname of the authorized representative. However, the company_x000D_ itself should be deemed as the person who issues the instrument, even if the promissory note is signed by_x000D_ an authorized representative under the commercial name of the commercial company, since the signature of_x000D_ the person who issues the instrument is an absolute mandatory element required by the law for issuing the_x000D_ promissory note.One of the absolute compulsory elements of the promissory note is the signature of the issuing person. Sometimes due to a legal obligation or sometimes the will of the person, the promissory note can be issued through an authorized representative. Except for the situation related to the term indirect representation, it is the represented person who is deemed to have the legal responsibilities on the promissory note as issuing the instrument if it is issued through a legal representative. Commercial companies use their will through their authorized bodies. However, the term representation cannot be mentioned when a promissory note is issued through the authorized bodies of the commercial companies. Instead, this instrument is deemed to be issued directly by the commercial company itself. The decision of the court of appeals, which constitutes the subject of our work, is related to two marks of the company stamp; one of which is located on the right bottom corner of the instrument, and the other one, which is located on the printed designated area for the guarantor. The one which is located on the right bottom corner of the instrument, is signed twice, without exceeding the mark of the stamp. In the context of this very instrument, it is decided upon that the company is the legal person who signs a surety, and the authorized representative of the company is the person who issues the instrument, regarding the fact that the printed designated area, indicating the person who performs the payment, filled with the name and surname of the authorized representative. However, the company itself should be deemed as the person who issues the instrument, even if the promissory note is signed by an authorized representative under the commercial name of the commercial company, since the signature of the person who issues the instrument is an absolute mandatory element required by the law for issuing the promissory note

Anonim ortaklıkta pay defteri

ÖZET"Anonim Ortaklıkta Pay Defteri" adlı bu çalışmamızda Türk Ticaret Kanunu ve Sermaye Piyasası Kanununun pay defterine ilişkin hükümlerini ele alıp inceledik. Çalışmamız üç ana bölüm ve on beş paragraftan oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde "Pay Defterine Hakim Olan Esasları" açıkladık. Bu çerçevede Ticaret Kanununda pay defteri kavramının bir birliktelik içinde kullanılmadığını tespit ettik. Pay defteri TTK m.66 anlamında ticari defter değildir. Pay defterinin işlevi ile ticari defterlerin işlevleri birbirlerinden çok farklıdır. Pay defterine başta nama yazılı pay senedi sahipleri olmak üzere, senede bağlanmamış pay sahipleri, nama ya da hamiline yazılı pay senetlerinin yerini tutmak üzere çıkarılmış nama yazılı ilmühaber sahipleri ad, soyad, adres, ticaret unvanı ve merkez bilgileriyle kaydedilirler. Bunun yanında her ne kadar Ticaret Kanununda açıkça öngörülmemiş olsa da intifa hakkı sahipleri ve rehin hakkı sahibi de pay defterine kaydedilmelidir. Pay defterini tutmakla yükümlü organ yönetim kuruludur. Bir pay sahibi pay defterinde kendisine ait kayıtları doğrudan doğruya üyelik sıfatına dayanarak inceleme hakkına sahiptir. Ancak bir pay sahibinin diğer pay sahipleri hakkındaki kayıtları inceleyebilmesi de söz konusu değildir. İkinci bölümde "Pay Defterinin Hukuki Niteliği ve Kaydın Etkilerini" inceledik. Pay defterinde yer alan kayıtlar, kayıtlı kişi lehine aksi her zaman ve her türlü delille ispatlanabilecek bir karine niteliğindedir. Üçüncü Bölümde "Pay defterine Kayıt Bildirimi ve Hukuki Sonuçları" yer almaktadır. Kural olarak pay defterine kayıt için "bildirim" zorunludur. Anonim ortaklık pay defterine kayıt amacıyla yapılan bildirimi uygun bir süre içinde incelemek ve karara bağlamak durumundadır. Yönetim kurulu pay defterine kayıt istemini keyfi olarak sürüncemede bırakamaz ve reddedemez. Aksi halde hukuken sorumlu olur. Anonim ortaklığın ret nedenleri açıkça düzenlenmelidir. Bunun yanında anonim ortaklığın pay defterine kayıt istemini reddettiği durumda nasıl bir hukuki sonucun ortaya çıkacağı açıkça gösterilmelidir. Anonim ortaklığın hukuka aykırı ret kararına karşı devralan ve devreden pay sahipleri "devrin onayı ve pay defterine kayıt davası" açma hakkına sahiptirler. Anonim ortaklığın pay defterindeki bir kaydı tek taraflı olarak silip silemeyeceği sorunu çözüm beklemektedir. Kanaatimizce pay sahibini koruyan ve hakkaniyete daha uygun çözüm Alman Hukukunun çözümüdür. Buna göre anonim ortaklık pay defterindeki bir kaydı tek taraflı olarak silemez.Sonuç olarak TTK m.417 hükmü pay defteri konusunda "temel norm" olmalıdır. Bu düzenlemede "pay defterinin içeriği", "pay defterine yapılan kayıtların hukuki niteliği", "pay defterine yapılacak kayıt usulü", "pay defterinin incelenmesi", "pay defterinde yer alan kayıtların silinmesi" konuları açıkça düzenlenmelidir. SUMMARYWe took up and researched provisions of Act of Turkish Commerce and Act of Capital Market on regulations of "book of shares" in this study. The study consists of three main chapter and fifteen paragraphs. We explained in the first chapter "The Essentials of book of Shares". We determined that the concept of "book of shares" is not be used in uniformity in Act of Turkish Commerce. In this frame. The "book of shares" is not a "commercial book" in the meaning of ATC. The function of "book of shares" and the functions of "commercial books" are very different from each other.Firstly, the owners of bonds which are not bounded to person; secondly the owners of bonds which are not bounded to bond; thirdly the owners of official certificate for taking place of shares of bonds which are given to order to bearers are registered to the "book of shares" with their name, surname, address, commercial name and central information. In addition, however it is not regulated clearly in ATC the owners of usufruct and right of mortgage must be registered "book of shares". The organ which has an obligation for bookkeeping is administrative committee. A shareholder has a right for scrutiny on "book of shares" which are interested with him by depending of statute of shareholder directly. But it is not possible to check for a shareholder information about other shareholders. We took up "Legal Characteristic of Book of Shares and Affects of Registration" in the second chapter. The registrations in "book of shares" are in character of statute which can be asserted in contrary with every kind of proof and every time against the shareholder who is shown in "book of shares"."Announcement of Registration to Book of Shares and Legal Conclusions" is in third chapter. Regularly, "announcement" is obligatory. The joint-stock company (incorporated) has to check and decide on announcement for registration in a reasonable time. Administrative committee can not reject the request or leave hanging in the air discretionary. If not, it is responsible legally. It should be clearly regulated the reasons for rejection. Neverthless, It should be clearly shown if there is a rejection in this way. The person who takes over and the person who transfers have right to sue which are called "devrin onayı", "pay defterine kayıt davası" against the joint-stock company which rejects the announcement illegally. It has been waiting for a solution for problem of whether the joint-stock company can unilateral erase a registration in "book of shares". To us, the solution in German law which protects the owner is suit to equity. According to this the joint-stock company can not erase the registration bilateral. As a conclusion, 417 th provision of ATC on "book of shares" should be the fundamental rule. "Content of book of shares", "legal character of registrations on book of shares", "scrutiny of book of shares", "erasing the registrations in book of shares" are regulated in this provision explicitly

Sneddon's syndrome in a patient with homonymus hemianopia with macular sparing

A