Exercised in good faith.



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 The first plaintiff was withdrawn the power to act as the defendant company, then the acting director of the company to act on behalf of the defendant company by the resolution of the majority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



Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More