Section 5 in the exercise of their own rights. The
repayment is good. Every person must act in good faith.
Section 6. It is presumed that Every person acts in good faith.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1814/2560.
As a manager of the estate, A. As a
court order is therefore a legal representative of the heirs. In the meeting of
the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of the defendant company, it
is entitled to take part in the general meeting of the defendant company under
the general authority of the administrator under Section 1719 and Section 1723
without. Must obtain the consent of the three plaintiffs, heirs. The authority
and responsibility of the trustee against the heirs is ensured by the
provisions of the law. Does not represent the heir. Because of the provisions
of the Civil and Commercial Code, 6 types of inheritance, apply the provisions
of Chapter 3, the use of the representative only. And this is not a legal act
that is prohibited under Section 1722 is not void. The first plaintiff was
withdrawn the power to act as the defendant company, then the acting director
of the company to act on behalf of the defendant company by the resolution of
the majority vote of shareholders, even in the private placement will vote.
Approved by the resolution. However, it was abstained as a trustee of the
estate. In case of an extraordinary meeting of shareholders, the shareholders
attending the meeting shall collect the total of not less than one half of the
total number of shares, thereby constituting a quorum according to the Articles
of Association. The meeting and the resolution of the Extraordinary General
Meeting of Shareholders of the defendant company.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
826/2560.
The plaintiff was assessed personal
income tax. But back to the case by claiming the facts of their dishonest acts.
Deposit is not a plaintiff's income. The company is a public listed company in
the Stock Exchange, unable to withdraw funds directly from its accounts to
politicians. The plaintiff's contract is for the plaintiff to disguise the
payment, and the plaintiff agrees to pay the company's check, which is part of
the money paid by the company to his deposit account received. Compensation To
revoke appraisal and appeal It is a dishonest right under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 5, the plaintiff has no power to sue. The issue of
power to sue is a legal issue of public order. Section 142 (5) of the Act on
the Establishment of the Tax Court and the Procedures for Taxation, BE 2528
(1985), Section 29 (former)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
13707/2558.
The plaintiff forced the defendant to
make a loan of 100,000 baht, the fact is only 10,000 baht loan is a dishonest
right. The plaintiff may not seek the benefits of the loan contract made in bad
faith. The problem that the plaintiff exercised in good faith? It is a problem
of public order. The Supreme Court has the power to lift the judgment.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
14405/2557.
The plaintiff did not deduct the debt on
the date of the dissolution of the plaintiff has a letter of termination of the
contract with the defendant from January 1, 2003, but the interest is
calculated and then deducted. The defendant to pay the remaining debt by the
indictment. According to the circumstances, the right to use the interest in
bad faith. The interest can not be combined with the money as the plaintiff
calculated in the complaint. When the burden of the defendant to pay the
plaintiff is less than the wage that the plaintiff is liable to pay the
defendant. The plaintiff has no power to sue. This issue is the law of public
order. The defendant will not appeal the petition. The Supreme Court has the
power to raise its own judgment under Section 142 (5) of Section 246 and 247
Judgment of the Supreme Court
404/2552.
There are issues that need to be
resolved. The plaintiff sued the right to file a lawsuit. The Central Tax Court
did not make a ruling on this issue and did not like it. Establishment of the
Tax Court and the method of taxation in 1985, Section 17, Civil Code Section
142, paragraph one. The Supreme Court of Taxation should agree to discard this
issue without the need. Referred to the Act on the Establishment of the Tax
Court and the Judicial Procedure for Taxation, BE 2528 (1985), Section 29,
Section 243 (1)
The plaintiff sued by the
right to request the transfer of rights under the tax card, which the third
defendant made an agreement with the plaintiff. If corruption occurs in the
claim for compensation for taxes and damage to the plaintiff in any case, the
third defendant agrees to plaintiff's liability in all respects without
dispute. The right to file a lawsuit under the third defendant to the plaintiff
before the transfer of rights under the tax dispute. So it is not right to
exercise your rights in bad faith.
When the third defendant filed
a request for the transfer of rights under the tax card, promised that if
corruption occurs. Reimbursement of tax And damage to the plaintiff in any
case, the third defendant agrees to plaintiff's liability in no way
contradictory. It is an agreement that is not a law, and not an agreement. Page
is the message except the plaintiff is liable for fraud. The serious negligence
of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 173 and does not conflict with the
peace or morals of the people under Section 150 shall apply to the third
defendant is liable under Contract for the plaintiff The plaintiff's claim
under the contract is not age specific. The age of 10 years under Section
193/30.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15187/2551.
The plaintiff signed the power
of attorney without the message. Details Show that the plaintiff knows and
accept that the land dispute can be taken. Power of Attorney for the plaintiff
to sign, transfer, resell or mortgage or any action after the termination of
the transfer 5 years from the issuance of documents 3 a. People who buy land
dispute disagreement. Such practice. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to revoke
the mortgage law so that the plaintiff does not pay. The plaintiff exercised
his right to dishonesty in accordance with Section 5 of the plaintiff has no
power to sue. And the problem of fraudulent use. Is a power lawsuit issue This
is a problem of law relating to public order. The Supreme Court ruled in
accordance with Article 142 (5)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4891/2551.
The court ruled that the land
disputes of the defendant was pledged to the land of the plaintiff by age. And
the plaintiff has the right to open the necessary way in the land of the
defendant, but the way in the land of the defendant does not fall into the
plaintiff's land. Court of Appeal 1 ruled that the dispute in the land of the
defendant is not a plaintiff to the land plaintiff. But it is necessary. The
two defendants superseded. The two defendants disagreed with the lower court
ruling that the plaintiff. Have a disability in the dispute by age. The
petition is not liked by the Civil Code Section 249 paragraph one because it
does not dispute the verdict of the Court of Appeal.
According to the plaintiff's argument, the dispute may be necessary or necessary, or both.
Second, it depends on the facts. The plaintiff's indictment of the plaintiff's
condition and the request. The plea is the principal of the charges, such as
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph two.
The land of the plaintiff was
another land encircled so that no entrance to the public. The plaintiff has the
right to ask the owner of the enclosed land is open. For the plaintiff to enter
the public road under Section 1349, which is the exercise of the right as
prescribed by law. It is not a dishonest exercise.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2341/2551.
Defendant The defendant did
not extend the stance of the building over the necessity and did not sell
stalls on the street. The petition of the defendant that the defendant's
actions were not violated. The plaintiff's consent is a contradiction to the
fact that the dispute is different from the statement that the petition was not
raised in the case before the court. Prohibition of petition under the Civil
Code Section 249 paragraph one.
The defendant to add the line
and put the goods on the street to interfere with the plaintiff's rights.
Plaintiffs who own a shopping center building will have the right to operate.
Damage or misbehavior to the end of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
1337, even if the owner of another shop will interfere with the plaintiff's
rights. But when the plaintiff wishes to also damage or suffering caused by the
action. Defendant to the end. The plaintiff sued the defendant to the right to
use the right to dishonesty.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1687/2551.
Due to the credit card used on
November 6, 1995, after that the bank did not allow the defendant to use
another credit card. The bank and the defendant agreed that the contract ended
on November 6, 2538. The bank will enforce their claims from November 7, 2538,
but the defendant brought the money to the bank on July 10, 1996 amounting to
5,000. The debt, which has caused the age to stop, and start counting on the
new age. From that date The 2-year maturity date is July 10, 1998. The bank
deposited Baht 6.68 from the savings account of the defendant to pay off credit
card debt on January 5, 1998 after the defendant defaulted on November 6. In
1995, the time allowed to pass up to 2 years, and interest charged with late
payment of debt payments. In addition, the Bank will not exercise its rights
under the agreement. It is an act that shows that. The bank relies on existing
legal rights as a channel for the bank to benefit. The interest and penalty
payments delayed between then and. To stop the breakdown. Regardless of the
damage the other party will receive. It is a dishonest right under the Civil
and Commercial Code, Section 5, so it does not cause the age to stop.
The defendant brought some
money to repay the debt by the bank deducted from the last account on September
29, 1998 amount of 1,000 baht to repay the debt after the right to terminate.
It only makes the debtor after the claim is terminated. Only the debtor can not
be reimbursed under Section 193/28, paragraph one, it is not a debt that will
cause the age of interruption under Section 193/14 (1) When the plaintiff, who
is the recipient. The claim was filed on September 26, 2000, more than two
years after the date of renewal. On July 10, 1996, the plaintiff's case was
terminated.
The problem of fraudulent use
is a power of lawsuit and a problem. Law of public order The Supreme Court has
ruled in accordance with the Civil Code Section 142 (5), Section 246, Section
247
Judgment of the Supreme Court
505/2551.
The petitioner lectures that
the land under the certificate (Miss. 3g.) That the plaintiff is not seized by
the defendant. It is a private property of the singer was derived from the
parent. The plaintiff did not sue the complainant, so no power to seize the
land disputes. Let's release the property. Display of the condition of the
claim of the petitioner that the land dispute that the plaintiff seized. It is
not the defendant or the Marital property, but the personal property of the
petitioner. And there are applications for both the plea of the main charge
of such as the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph two, then the
petitioner disputed land from the parent and by any means. The only thing that
can be counted in the class is to find the need to describe in the petition,
the petitioner's claim is not covered.
The petitioner and the
defendant to the land dispute as collateral for the defendant when the
defendant breached the contract of insurance and the court sentenced the
defendant to pay the debt under the insurance contract, but the defendant did
not pay the plaintiff has the power to seize the land disputes enforceable debt
dispute property. Is Marital property Or private property The petitioner will claim
that the land dispute is a private property and will use the right to request
release. Dispute land can not find. The petitioner has no power to sue. Because
the right to dishonesty is not in accordance with Section 5
Judgment of the Supreme Court
137/2551.
The defendant filed a civil
suit and made a compromise agreement to the applicant. Asked for the average
property. Conspiracy with the defendant to avoid the money from the auction.
The defendant to pay the plaintiff. It is a dishonest exercise.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5523/2550.
Even though the consent of the
depositor to guarantee the debt of others will give the plaintiff the right. To
deduct money from the deposit of the defendant 2 and 3 to repay the debt from
22 May 2540, which is the day after the date of the loan agreement. But there
is no deduction from the deposits of the defendants 2 and 3 since May 1997,
because Mr. W, who is the second and third defendants, and then the plaintiff's
bank manager. The three defendants entered into a loan and guarantee contract.
I do not want to make the second defendant, who is suffering from mental
illness. The reason is that the plaintiff did not exercise the right to deduct
money from the deposit of the defendant 2 and 3 from the day after the date of
the loan agreement. It is not a matter for the plaintiff to ignore the time to
slip without exercising the right. The law exists for the plaintiff to benefit
unilaterally, without regard. The damage that the defendant will receive. The
case can not be considered that the plaintiff's actions are unfair.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4310/2550.
The loan agreement that the
plaintiff and the defendant made a deal on interest in the first and second
paragraphs of the contract. The borrower is willing to pay interest to the
lender at a rate. MLR Per annum (current 13.75 percent per annum). The second
paragraph states that if, after the date of the contract, the lender has
changed interest rates. The borrower allows the lender to charge interest on
the outstanding debt owed by the borrower. According to the contract as the
lender. The maximum interest rate is set by the Bank of Thailand. Commercial
banks charge customers. Only the lender informed the borrower to know only the
contract 2 in the last paragraph. The borrower agrees that if the borrower
defaults on any one installment, the borrower agrees. Interest is charged at
the maximum interest rate specified by the Bank of Thailand. Commercial banks
charge customers. The interest is calculated on the amount of outstanding debt
as follows: The contract is the first agreement to fix interest rates early by
default. MLR And to the plaintiff to change the interest rate set for the first
part of the contract is that the plaintiff has the right to charge interest at
a higher rate in the case of the defendant. Defaulted by the plaintiff in the
complaint that the plaintiff used the interest charged by the defendant. The
case was defaulted at the rate of 14.5 percent per year, with the defendant
defaulted on December 2, 1997 at the Court of First Instance. Since the
defendant defaulted, the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest at the rate.
MLR The rate that the plaintiff announced the change, which is the interest
before the default, so do not like.
According to the Housing Loan
Agreement, Article 2.1 requires the defendant to pay the principal and interest
to the plaintiff. Monthly payment of not less than 5,300 baht, must be
completed within November 17, 2010 even if the agreement is set out in Article
4 that if the defendant defaulted in any one or any part of the contract is
deemed wrong. All appointments and the defendant allowed the plaintiff to
collect all the debts immediately, it is not obligatory. When the defendant
defaulted, then the plaintiff must sue for debt recovery from the defendant
immediately. It is a plaintiff to give the defendant the opportunity to pay
debts. It can not be regarded as a dishonest exercise. It is not the case that
the Court of First Instance exercised the discretion to reduce the default
interest rate. Therefore, when appearing in a copy of the Notification of the
Bank of Thailand and a copy of the plaintiff's notice that. Interest at the
rate of 14.5 percent per year that the plaintiff from the defendant defaulted
on December 2, 1997 is not higher than the maximum interest rate announced by
the plaintiff. By virtue of the Notification of the Bank of Thailand The
plaintiff is entitled to charge interest at the rate as from December 2, 1997
under the contract.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3212/2550.
The plaintiff has a contract
to buy and sell land that the defendant made to the plaintiff as evidence. The
plaintiff has the right to bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract to buy and
sell. However, when the court ruled that the land purchase agreement would be
void, the plaintiff could not enforce the debt under the loan agreement, so it
remained unbundled. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued to
enforce the plaintiff's rights. The law does not hold that the plaintiff
exercised his rights in bad faith.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8839/2549.
The plaintiff modified the
month in the delivery order to the plaintiff's case to terminate under Section
193/34 (1), then brought to the defendant to defend the contract of sale and
use as evidence in the case. It is unfair to exercise the right of the court.
The plaintiff has no power to sue the defendant to pay for the goods on the
delivery. This issue is a law of public order. Even the defendants will not be
fighting in the court. The defendant raised the petition under Section 249
paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6924/2549.
The plaintiff is the
authorized director to sign on behalf of the company, which is the business of
land allocation, the name of the drive. Later, in 1985, the company closed the
project by selling the land. The Company's shareholders agreed to share the
remaining assets of the Company. The plaintiff received about 20 plots of land,
but because the plaintiff is the authorized director to sign the company will
not be the name of the plaintiff's ownership. Because of the antagonism of the
Department of Lands. And time to resell will require permission to re-allocate
the land. The plaintiff will spread the name. The plaintiff's trust to hold
several representatives. B. One plaintiff employed. The plaintiff holds the
ownership of eight plots of land instead of the plaintiff. And the plaintiff
has mortgaged the land pledged by the plaintiff at the bank. And the plaintiff
said that the land is not the eight plots. The plaintiff also carried out the
ownership of many other land plots. The plaintiff's actions are the case where
the plaintiff's conspiracy with the b. And other people to avoid the law on the
allocation of land. And avoid the conditions of the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 80, which was in force at that time to acquire the ownership of land.
The plaintiff sued for the return of all eight plots of land is a dishonest
exercise. The plaintiff has no power to sue to enforce the two defendants
revoke the detention order. All eight plots of land.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4819/2549.
Under the lease agreement. The
car was stolen. The defendant will be liable for two types of compensation by
the plaintiff, the lessee and the insurance company. Excessive damage to the
defendant. When the plaintiff is a premium and the defendant is a beneficiary.
The plaintiff will not have to pay the car to the defendant to pay a premium.
And the defendant has the intention of claiming the insurance company. Until
the insurance company approved to pay the defendant. The defendant received the
remaining rent from the plaintiff after the hire purchase. It was stolen as a
dishonest exercise. To pay the rent to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4204/2549.
The plaintiff employed the
designation of service marks disputes instead of the company because the
plaintiff is the co-investor with the second defendant in the company F.
Company, a separate legal entity, has the right to trademark disputes. Although
the plaintiff is the inventor of LA FIESTA read that La Fiesta, but it is the
plaintiff's actions as a co-investor with the two defendants in the company and
the design of service marks disputes, F is the owner of the service marks of
the dispute, the fact that the registered trademark disputes and later
transferred to the plaintiff. In case the plaintiff together with the
signatories to the service for registration and transfer. The plaintiff to sue
for damages from the two defendants in this case. The right to dishonesty under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 5, the plaintiff has no power to sue.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4091/2549.
According to the debt
contract. The plaintiff to the defendant to pay installments of 7,000 baht
each, the plaintiff deducted the salary of the defendant at the end of each
month and will deduct annual bonuses of every year is a major condition for
repayment. When the plaintiff fired the defendant. The agreed repayment method
can not continue. Before the debt is due to pay in September 1998, the
defendant has written to the plaintiff to repay the debt by transferring the
installment to the plaintiff's account, the plaintiff informed the account
number and bank to the plaintiff to transfer money to the defendant. for I will
transfer money to the end of the month. The plaintiff has already received the
book. But the defendant not to know. Defendant must notify the plaintiff again
2 times, but the plaintiff ignored the same. Defendant has settled the
plaintiff by sending money through postal money. But the plaintiff refused to
accept. Repeatedly returned to the defendant to pay all debts by claiming that
the defendant defaulted to the defendant. Money to settle at the office. It
shows the earnest to pay the debt to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the
plaintiff to enforce the debt to pay all the debt. Legal rights are the only
way for the plaintiff to benefit unilateral, regardless of the damage that the
other party will be exercised in bad faith under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 5, the plaintiff has no power. sue
Judgment of the Supreme Court
667/2549.
Even the overdraft loan
agreement, including the overdraft loan agreement, which With the nature of the
contract, the current account will not be scheduled. The current contract is a
unique contract. The contract will continue to exist, it must be constantly
spread and account. Within a reasonable time The fact is that the money was
taken into account to deduct the last account on March 14, 1983. There is no
account anymore, until the death of the death for nearly 12 years, that is. The
intention was to terminate the contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a
financial institution is obliged to monitor the account of the customer all the
time. How are the movements When it appears that the customer, the customer of
the plaintiff has no account movement. The plaintiff will have to call or
terminate the contract in a timely manner. This is not an opportunity to take
interest in a long time. It can be said that the plaintiff did not act in good
faith. The contract is considered to be dissolved from the date the plaintiff
intended to terminate the contract with the plaintiff by default is March 14,
1983, which was the last day of the payment of the account. The claim of the
plaintiff under the overdraft agreement has occurred since then. The claim is
based on 10 years of age, the plaintiff sued the case on February 5, 2539 after
10 years, the debt under the current contract is terminated. However, when it
appears that P. land and buildings are registered mortgage to secure the debt
in the amount of 5,500,000 baht with interest at the rate of 15 percent per
year with an agreement that if the plaintiff's mortgage is not enough money.
The debt is enforced. Other assets until the maturity date, even if the debt
under the current contract will terminate. If the case is required by Section
193/27 and Section 745, the plaintiff, a mortgagee, will be obliged to repay
the mortgage even when the debt. The mortgage is insured, then it is. However,
it will not be possible to pay overdue interest for more than five years. And
it is mandatory, but only mortgaged property. I can not find any other
property. Although under the mortgage agreement will require the removal of
other assets until the end. If the mortgage is not enough money.
(3 rd big meeting, 2005)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
447/2549.
Defendant 1 is a pavilion on
the road and the second defendant is the leader of the various types of tires
and wood chips on the road, which is a way of pledging the land of the
plaintiff, the defendant's actions, thus preventing the plaintiff. And the
attorney of the plaintiff. Get the convenience to use the disputed road. Both
defendants held that the benefits of the reduction or lack of service.
Convenient to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the victim. The plaintiff has the
power to sue the two defendants. Even the plaintiff or the attorney of the plaintiff
made clothes in the street dispute. Finding the actions of the two defendants
did not cause the plaintiff to be damaged. Anyhow. Both the plaintiff sued the
case because the two defendants have the advantage of the road dispute. This is
a way to reduce the plight or lack of convenience for the plaintiff. It is a
good exercise.
Even the defendants built a
shed and placed many articles of tires and wood chips. On the street dispute
since 1990. Think of the 30 October 1997, which is a date of filing more than a
year, but when the pits and items that the two defendants are still on the road
to the plaintiff until the date the plaintiff filed the case. The plaintiffs
asked to dismantle the shed and move the items out of the disputed road, which
is the way of servitude, so it continues to exist. The plaintiff's case does
not terminate.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4351/2548.
Memorandum of compromise
between the three plaintiffs and the defendant and the plaintiff's three
plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant filed a lawsuit against the
plaintiff for the forgery of documents. Use fake documents This is a criminal
case, not a valid offense. It is an agreement that is intended to be contrary
to public order or morals. The public will be void under Section 150
Memorandum of Understanding In
addition to the agreement to withdraw the criminal case, which is void. There
are also several other agreements. Both sides have been in compliance with the
agreement to a large extent. Only items 4 and 5 are still available. It appears
that the plaintiff has brought 700,000 baht to put the office of the estate and
then let the defendant know. And the defendant has to ask for such money. But
the officer did not pay because the defendant can not transfer the land to the
plaintiff. Third, without undue burden. The defendant wishes to enforce a
compromise agreement, showing the intent of the parties that they wish to make
an agreement other than the matter. The withdrawal of a criminal case is
binding both parties are the same. And all other agreements are all agreements
on civil disputes, which are not prohibited by law, not impossible or contrary
to public order. The moral of the people in the circumstances of the case is
assumed that both parties. The two parties intend to give the non-null part
separately from the null part. It does not make the compromise agreement void
the entire issue. Other terms other than the agreement on the withdrawal of
criminal charges still binding the parties under Section 173
The defendant brought the land
to the third party after recording the agreement. Compromised by the defendant
is not authorized by the agreement. Defendant knows that the three plaintiffs
unfavorable. It is a dishonest exercise. And the court sentenced the defendant to
transfer the ownership of the land to the three plaintiffs. There is no third
party right. It does not revoke registration of the land. But it is the
plaintiff to force the defendant to the judgment alone.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5142/2545.
The petitioner is a juristic
person in which the hire purchase of a motorcycle is in the middle of one of
the objectives of the petitioner. The petitioner can not know that the
defendant is a third person to bring the car to the wrongdoing when the
petitioner asked to return the car after the middle of the accident is not
enough to hear that the petitioner does not wish to get a car. The night, but a
refund for the sake of the hire purchase, both the claimant did not exercise
the right to terminate the lease, but the default is not paid for hire the last
5. It would be an opportunity. A good customer and in no way appear that the
MPs were conscientious in the offense of the defendant. The petitioner returned
for a motorcycle. It is not the right to dishonesty but to return the
motorcycle to the middle of the petitioner.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4702/2543.
The "one year from the
date of the final judgment" in the filing of a petition for a federal
return under the Penal Code, Section 36, means a period of one year from the
date of the matter. At the end of the appeals period or petition, no party
appealed or petitioned. Not from the date the Court of First Instance ordered
the confiscation of the center. Then no party appealed. And even the defendant
will not appeal for the confiscation of the center, but the defendant also
appealed for a sentence of imprisonment. The case is not yet reached.
Cause during the lease is
still valid. The petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle. As a result, the
applicant has not exercised his right to terminate the lease agreement. The
ownership of the change from the petitioner and will be considered by the
petitioner for the benefit of the defendant, which is a dishonest exercise can
not find it. Unless there is a circumstance showing that the petitioner is
involved in the offense. By the way, the evidence did not appear.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3181/2543.
When the plaintiff's witnesses
have heard that the defendant must assume that the debt is insignificant, then
it is the duty of the defendant to bring witnesses to disprove the presumption.
When the defendant failed to file a statement and also missed the appointment
as well. The fact is that the defendant has a lot of debt. The fact that the
plaintiff abandoned the execution of the lawsuit. When the execution time is
nearing the end of the case. The interest is calculated and a lot of it. The
exercise of the right and the right to exercise the rights in good faith. Will
be considered as the case should not be the defendant failed to find
bankruptcy.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6487/2540.
The petitioner is a finance
and securities company engaged in commercial finance. Hire purchase is one of
many objectives of the petitioner, so that the applicant for the car hire of
the medium is the business of the purpose of the petitioner. Yes, it is the
singer's intention, but only the profit from the sale of goods and leasing
price is important. The applicant did not terminate the lease or request a
refund of the central car in the investigation stage that when the lease is not
paid for 4 consecutive installments, the petitioner has to track employees know
that the car was detained by the police. At the police station It appears that
the prosecutor has filed a lawsuit. The petitioner does not request the return
of the car in the middle of the investigation is not a question. Although the
lease is obliged to pay the rent until the end and to pay all damages to the
car. When it appears that K. also have to pay several hundred thousand rent.
The claimant, who owns the car in the middle of the real car, filed a petition
in the case. It is for the benefit of the singer. Is it for the benefit of
others? Hire Purchase It is a good exercise. The circumstances of the case can
not be heard that the petitioner was aware of the offense of the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
620/2538.
When the Director-General of
the Department of Commercial Registration issued a patent for the invention of
steel blinds attached to folding and folding steel doors to the defendant, then
the plaintiff filed a patent application design blinds for steel bars, the
defendant has filed objections. The Director-General of the Department of
Commercial Registration, the Director-General of the Department of Commercial
Registration, shall raise the objection of the defendant to appeal the decision
to the Board of Directors. During the consideration of the Appeals Committee,
the defendant filed a complaint with the police officer to prosecute the
plaintiff, the police officer seized the plaintiff's products as a medium when
the plaintiff's products are of the most common or used in accordance with the
invention of the patent. The defendant has a difference in only the finer
details, it can make people understand that the product is remembered. The
invention is protected by the Patent Act, BE 2522, Section 36. The right to
manufacture a product or use it under a patent or sale or for sale in which the
product is manufactured or used. The sole proprietor of the defendant's
complaint is not a false statement, which the defendant knew already. The
staff, however, be exercised in good faith to protect the rights of the
defendant's actions did not violate the plaintiff. The police officer freeze
and seize the property of the plaintiff is the case where the investigator has
discretion freeze and seize the object, which should be evidence for the
benefit or the accused in the criminal case, according to the Criminal
Procedure Code gives power to the inquiry officer. The lawyer of the inquiry
officer does not violate the plaintiff if the police officer. To maintain the
property of the middle as well as the maintenance of their own property, it is
the plaintiff to prosecute the police officer to be liable to the plaintiff's
violation of the plaintiff can not come from the defendant, even according to
the record. Finding that the defendant misrepresented the plaintiff in seizing
and attaching all items.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3233/2537.
Defendant 1 car lease contract
from the plaintiff, the defendant 2 to 5 contracted a guarantee. The lease
agreement states that the defendant. 1 Need car insurance from the plaintiff
and the plaintiff to lose premium as a beneficiary, the defendant was a car
insurance dispute with the company is a deal for the benefit of third parties.
The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the loss of a hire-purchase car
from the company. R. Another way. Effective under the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 374 of the plaintiff's rights will arise when the intention to
the company that will benefit from the contract, but the company. It may be the
fight against the existing insurance contract with the defendant. 1, which is
the contractor to fight the plaintiff, the beneficiary under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 376, the plaintiff will demand that the company
compensation for the loss of the defendant's car lease, so there is a risk that
it will not be. Compensation for damages than the plaintiff's claim to the
defendant from 1 to 5 are liable for the loss of a direct hire car. The
plaintiff did not claim compensation for the company, but the defendant claims
1 to 5 directly to the right to exercise the right to do.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4091/2549.
Defendant to repay debt. And
send money to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff did not pay back the defendant.
Use of the plaintiff's plaintiff to force the defendant to pay all debts are
based on the existing law is a channel for the plaintiff to benefit only.
Regardless of the damage that the other party will be exercised in bad faith
under Section 5