Force majeure

Section 8 The word "force majeure" means any cause whatsoever. It would be good. It can not be prevented even if the person who is experiencing it. It is a good idea to be cautious of the person and situation.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8509/2559.
           The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541 (1998), Section 75 does not prescribe that the force majeure causes the employer to cease to be a serious offender, so that the employer is unable to conduct his normal business. Only stipulates that in the case of the employer is necessary because of the significant impact on the business operation of the employer and can not conduct business as usual. The employer may stop all or part of the business temporarily. The plaintiff's temporary stoppage of employment only in the production of car stereo by factory. Parts produced by the plaintiff to be purchased for the production of car stereos, floods, floods, unable to carry out the production of parts delivered to the plaintiff. This is why there is a direct impact on the economic crisis in the plaintiff's business. The plaintiffs are required to temporarily stop some operations. Act of Labor Protection Act, BE 2541, Section 75

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6617 - 6619/2559.
             The Court of First Instance delivered a judgment on September 6, 2004. The plaintiff, who is a creditor under the verdict, would like to enforce the case under the verdict within 10 years from the date the Court of First Instance has a verdict in the first paragraph of Civil Code Section 271, but the plaintiff has filed a petition to submit the defendant on the day. On July 25, 2014, after 9 years of imprisonment, the imminent execution of the lawsuit was considered a defect. The plaintiffs do not take action very early judgment to the defendant, which the Court ruled that. The plaintiff's request for extension of the enforcement period has no special circumstances and no force majeure. The Court of First Instance has ruled that there are no grounds as plaintiff claimed in the petition. The fact that the plaintiff is not a defendant in the plaintiff's case. On the request for extension of the enforcement period, dated September 8, 2014, there are grounds to extend the period. The report on the results of the submission is not in the expression. The plaintiff can submit the request for the execution of the lawsuit and the request for extension of the enforcement period is dated October 1, 2014. The plaintiff knows that the defendant is working at the company, which is within the same enforcement period. It is a special circumstance or force majeure. An appeal is made at the discretion of the Court of First Instance to hear the facts. It is an appeal in fact. When the case has the amount of dispute in the appeal no more than 50,000 baht, it is forbidden to appeal in the facts of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 224, paragraph one, the appeal of the plaintiff, even if the appeal is in fact related to the proceedings of the proceedings. The Court of First Instance, which is not related to the content of the case, the couple dispute. It must be prohibited by such provisions as well.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4197/2559.
               Defendants have the right and benefits under the promotion certificate of the Board of Investment. However, the defendant can not import raw materials and are exempted from import duty on goods for export under the conditions specified. The imported raw materials were burned. The defendant is not a contributor or contributor, negligent or negligent. And it is a force majeure. The defendant did not violate or do not comply with the conditions set forth intentionally. And this is a circumstance beyond what the defendant can enforce. The defendant is encouraged to receive exemption of import duty on imported raw materials because the state needs to promote investment. Focus on the benefits of creating jobs for people. The people do not consume raw materials or imported goods, which will cause the state to lose their trade balance, which can be seen from the conditions prescribed by the Board of Investment to import raw materials imported to produce goods for export only. Before the fire, the raw materials imported to the defendant are exempt from import duties. When imported raw materials are destroyed, they can not be produced for export and raw materials can not be consumed in the country. And it is impossible for the defendant to comply with the conditions set forth so that the defendant can not bring raw materials to produce goods for export under the conditions prescribed by the fire. Therefore, it is not necessary to withdraw the rights and benefits that the defendant received under the promotion.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3999/2559.
      Although the defendant confirmed that the ship may dock before schedule due to natural disaster under the Laycan contract and a force majeure that the defendant can not control. But when the defendant did not prove that the reason that the ship that the defendant employed to dock and leave the port prematurely caused by natural disasters. In case it is force majeure, it must be said that the cause is not preventable under Section 8, when the defendant engaged in shipping business must know that the time of navigation. And the dock may be inaccurate. If the defendant takes reasonable care as an entrepreneur, it should not be liable to leave the port of departure before delivery of goods as the plaintiff notified in advance. Therefore, the defendant's defense is not enforceable.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3533/2559.
              Before the auction about 3 to 4 days, the defendant was authorized to oversee the auction of land and buildings of the plaintiff debtors. The rules of the plaintiff's enforcement of the plaintiff's order to go before the auction. And the auction before the price and opposition opponents. The regulations governing the execution of the plaintiff's claim that the fighters must find a higher price or to buy themselves. This auction is an important time for the defendant to take care and prepare by checking the case and the way to go to the Lopburi Administrative Office in advance. The defendant had enough time to prepare. The defendant to the defendant was not guilty of the defendant who did not prepare the protection before the can be done. It is not a force majeure, which will cause the defendant to be released from liability for breach of contract. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1483/2559.
              After the plaintiff's lawyers both filed a petition for extension of the petition. And the Court of First Instance has a permit. Only the plaintiff filed a petition to extend the petition period. The Court of First Instance has the authorization to extend the period of the petition to the plaintiff, the first one, including the plaintiff's second, not because the right to petition is a matter of the couple, but the plaintiff as a whole. Two new ones Filing petition for extension of time, the Supreme Court then allowed the extension of the petition to the plaintiff, the second case, the Court of First Instance will have an order to extend the time to the plaintiff to the plaintiff. The second plaintiff must refer to the force majeure plaintiff. 2 The applicant can not file an extension of the petition before the end of the period in which the Court of First Instance has ordered the extension of the period for the plaintiff to the 27th day. March 2558, according to the petition. Plaintiffs' attorneys both in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, Article 23. However, according to the complaint. The plaintiff's lawyer, the two new ones. The only claim that the plaintiff's attorney's document is all that the plaintiff's attorney did not contact. Need to copy the document in all new expressions. Can not make a petition filed with the court of first instance. This refers to a special circumstance that makes it impossible to file a petition within the prescribed time limit. Even according to the claim will claim that such a cause is force majeure. However, the plaintiff can not file a petition for the extension of the petition before the deadline of March 27, 2015. Not only is the plaintiff's case, the two new plaintiffs have just been appointed. From the plaintiff on the date of filing the petition itself, so it can not conduct any proceedings. The two plaintiffs before being appointed as plaintiff's attorney. When there is no force majeure, the plaintiff can not file an extension of the petition period before the end of the period. The Court of First Instance ordered the extension of the petition to the plaintiff, the second is not the case with the Civil Code Section 23 and the Court of First Instance has the second petition of the plaintiff at a later time, the petition filed. Delayed filing petition. I do not like the law. And it is considered a violation of the Code of Civil Procedure Code 27. This problem is a law that concerns the public order. The Supreme Court has the power to raise, correct and correct the error of the Civil Code Section 247, Section 246 and Section 142 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1199/2559.
               In this case, the Central Bankruptcy Court has a custody order of the debtor 1 on June 8, 2010, before the Central Bankruptcy Court will order the debtor to be the first defendant in red case No. 7620/2010 on June 15. 2010 for 7 days, the Central Bankruptcy Court in the case did not know that the first debtor has been in this case before. Subsequently, when the Central Bankruptcy Court in the case mentioned the order of protection of the debtor 1 is strictly prohibited to the official receiver of the case. And the official receiver of the lawsuit has announced the order of protection of the debtor, the first creditors to file a request for debt settlement in the case on September 7, 2010, while not yet published in the gazette, which was before the official receiver in the lawsuit. This has just been posted on the advertisements, orders, security, debtors, debtors 1 in the newspaper and in the government. On September 16, 2010 and October 19, 2010 respectively, it appeared that the official receiver of the case considered the receipt of payment and scheduled to check the claim for debt settlement in the said case on January 19, 2011 shows that the official receiver of the case. In the same agency, it was never known that the Central Bankruptcy Court had the order of the debtor The lack of this case in the first case, so that the creditor filed a request for debt settlement in the case. It does not check whether the debtor is liable in another case before or not to file a claim for debt in another case. As a consequence of the operation of the receivership agent and the proceedings of the Central Bankruptcy Court in such cases, the creditor was wrongly mistaken to understand that the debtor 1 was not being held in another case. In case of force majeure, the creditors can not apply for debt settlement in this case within the period prescribed by law. It is expedient to extend the period of submission of the request for payment to the creditor until the creditor filed a request for payment and the plaintiff to receive the repayment of the creditors to continue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15019/2558.
                   The liability of the defendant 1 and 2, which is the cargo of the sea from the port. Even though it appears to be a carriage by boat. In this case, the carriage of goods by sea in respect of the duties and rights of the carrier and the consignee, not the contractor, shall be subject to enforcement. Act of Carriage of Marine Affairs, 1991, Section 5, defendant 4 is a carrier of marine products in the country. Do not need Act of Carriage of the sea, 1991, Section 4, paragraph two, by the duties and rights of the defendant, 4, the force of the Civil and Commercial Code on the carriage of such. When it appears that the first and second defendants have been transported in the care to transport and issue a bill of lading. The shipment was weighted at 1,964,583 metric tons and was labeled "Shipped, in apparent good order and condition" and the message "Clean on board" indicates that the defendant's first and second cargoes were taken for transportation. The goods are exactly as stated in the bill of lading. And the goods are in good condition. And the consignee delivers the goods shipped with, has delivered the goods to the ship. That the consignee procured. It is the case that the first and second defendants have delivered the goods to the consignee. When the boat arrived at Koh Si Chang, the investigator and assess the damage of goods that the plaintiff is the employer also issued a report. Confirm that the weight of the shipment is equal to that received for shipment from origin. It is presumed that the carrier has delivered the goods, which have the quantity, weight and other details as specified in the consignment note. If you do not issue a bill of lading. It is presumed that the delivery of good condition, as the case may be, and the plaintiff has a burden to prove that the goods delivered did not meet the amount specified in the bill of lading. I do not think that the lack of goods. From the incident occurred while the cargo was in the custody of the defendants 1 and 2, the defendants 1 and 2 are not liable for the lack of cargo or lost. For the fourth defendant, the defendants 1 and 2 did not deliver the goods transported to the defendant. 4, the number of shipments for transportation. And the plaintiff itself can not prove that the defendant 4 has been shipped goods for transportation how much. In addition to the invoice, the moisture content of the product as well. The transport is also the fourth defendant, so it is not liable for the lack of wheat shipments as well. The problem of sudden rain people pull the canvas off the ship. As a result, the remainder of the shipment is wetted. In this regard, the cargo was damaged during the custody of the defendant 4, neither force majeure, because it can be anticipated and prevented as a carrier of the cargo. Defendant 4 is responsible for the rice. Whale transported this damage.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13718/2558.
                 The Court of Appeal extended the appeal period to the defendant by August 27, 2014. On August 28, 2014, the defendant's lawyer filed a request for an extension of the appeal period of one month, alleging that it had not received the words and expressions of the request for interrogation. During the administrative process The case is a petition for an extension of the appeal period. After the grace period expires The defendant requested to expand only if there is force majeure under Section 23 of the Civil Code Section 23, Section 15, but the plea of ​​the complaint is a defect of the defendant's own lawyer who did not follow the documents that have been taken. Early on, it is not a force majeure, so the defense attorney has the right to file an extension of the appeal period at the end of the appeal period. Court of First Instance has no authority to extend the appeal period to the defendant. The Court of First Instance allowed the extension of the appeal period to September 27, 2014. And when the defendant appealed on September 26, 2014, the Court of First Instance has an order for the defendant's appeal. Court of First Instance Appeal of Defendant The Court of Appeal 3 considered the appeal of the defendant did not like it as well. And not the plaintiff has the right to petition. The problem is legal issues related to peace. There are no parties to raise a petition. The Supreme Court has the power to raise the judgment under Section 195 paragraph two, Section 225.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10808/2558.
               The defendant filed a petition dated April 22, 2556 to extend the period of filing the fee of the Supreme Court on January 28, 2009 the court ordered the defendant to pay the fee to the Court of First Instance within 30 days, claiming that the defendant. Can make money And the name of the defendant.

Despite the time the defendant paid the court fee, the Supreme Court has already passed the case for about 4 years, which is a process that does not like. And arising from the mistake of the defendant itself is not a special circumstance or force majeure, the court will extend the time limit under Section 23 of the Civil Code. Although the Court of First Instance will have an extension of time to pay the fee to the Supreme Court at the request of the defendant. And the defendant has to pay the fee to pay the court within the extended period. It is not held that the petition of the defendant is a lawful petition to be considered. This is the law of public order. The Supreme Court has the power to lift the ruling even if no party is raised by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 142 (5), and Section 246 and 247.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1589/2558.
            If the car is damaged by the tsunami, hit the tree and flip side to the fragments of broken materials, causing the car to be damaged, damaged and unusable hire. Under the contract to the hire purchase contract, Article 5, paragraph two, if not a fault of the lease. The lessee is liable for damages only to the extent that the owner has spent the necessary and reasonable cause and according to Article 11 stipulates that when the lease is terminated. The leasing agent is obliged to deliver the car back. Even the plaintiff sued in the case of a default lease. But it is enough to hold that the plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the hire-purchase ends because of not being the fault of the lender. When the rental car is damaged, it can not be repaired. But all cars have been lost, the condition still remains. The plaintiff as the owner is entitled to trace the property. Even cars that are leased from disaster affected by force majeure. The leasing company is not responsible for delivery of the vehicle in good condition. However, it must be returned according to the actual condition after the disaster. Defendants as the heirs of the lease and the guarantor is liable to return the property to the plaintiff. If not returned, it must be used instead. The cost of car is 20,000 baht.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4317/2558.
               The plaintiff did not investigate the address of the defendant to submit a copy of the appeal to the new defendant and to the court within a period of 1 month, leaving the time for a period of up to 3 months, although the plaintiff claims that. Force Majeure on Flood Disaster The plaintiff can not be processed within the court order. But it appears that the Court of First Instance is still open. The plaintiff can communicate with the court of first instance easily. No matter the phone Or electronic communication, which is widely used. But the plaintiff did not. The case is not force majeure. The plaintiff dismissed the appeal only the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14931/2557.
             Defendant 1, the plaintiff rented a safe to keep the property, with the defendants 2, 4 and 5 as employees are responsible for maintaining the code and key room security. The second defendant kept a copy of the code and how to open a stable room in the drawer. The defendant's desk 4 kept the keys of the stable in a small safe, and the defendant 5 stored another steady key in the drawer of the office table. The defendant's first cause is that the villain dismantled and used to open the room and steal the plaintiff's stored in a safe, so it must be considered. Each of the defendants were negligent for 2, 4 and 5 in the storage room key card and security as a result of plaintiffs directly to the scene of the burglary. Not a force majeure that can not be prevented. The defendant's 2nd and 4th defendants negligently in the employ of the defendant, the first defendant, the employer must be jointly liable to defendants 2, 4 and 5 in accordance with Section 425 of the one. with

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11751 - 11752/2557.
             The request for extension of the appeal period must be enforced. Establishment of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and the Intellectual Property and International Trade Intellectual Property Act, BE 2539 (1996), Section 37 provides that the court shall have the power to consider, Necessity and Benefit of Justice Even the plaintiff may request extension of time after the appeal deadline. It must be a case of force majeure under Section 23 of the Civil Code, but it does not appear that on April 26, 2012, the defendants of the five defendants filed an extension of the appeal period alleging that a copy of the verdict was not received. Intellectual property and international trade It also does not appeal. The court ordered the extension of the appeal period for the five defendants to June 29, 2012 and April 30, 2012, the date of appeal. It appears from the officer's report that a copy of the verdict was issued to the plaintiff in accordance with the statement of the plaintiff's verdict dated March 30, 2012 as follows: It will appear that on May 2, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request for extension of the filing period. Appeal The plaintiff's attorney has the opportunity to receive a copy of the judgment on the date of appeal, and before the plaintiff filed a petition to extend the appeal period of only two days, which is a very short time for the plaintiff to appeal in this case. Therefore, it is necessary for the sake of justice to extend the appeal period to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10285/2557.
                Section 8, the word "force majeure" means that any event that will happen. It would be good. That's why it can not be prevented. Even if the person who is experiencing or experiencing a problem is properly cared for by the person in the situation and situation. The provisions of the law that. To be considered a force majeure, it must be the cause of the person's fault. If the victim is careful to take reasonable care, then the bank, which has been assigned by the buyer to take the money 550,000 to pay the Department of Justice and then embezzlement. To be selfish by dishonesty. Buyers can not know that such an event. It is considered that such a force majeure. The reason for failure to pay the debt on time is not the fault of the buyer. And that is why buyers can not expect. The buyer of the property claims to be force majeure to extend the remaining payment period.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9530/2557.
             The defendants filed an extension of the appeal dated December 18, 2006, before the end of the appeals process. However, the document is missing from the idiom. As a result, the Court of First Instance can not order an extension before the end of the appeal period. The defendants did not find the request for an extension of the appeal period, dated December 18, 2006. The request for extension of the appeals process, dated January 12, 2007, has been reviewed by the Court of First Instance. On that day, the two defendants have not received the requested documents. There is a reason to extend the appeal period to the request dated January 12, 2007, offered after the deadline. The Court of First Instance allowed the extension of the appeal period, according to the defendant's plea, so they liked it. The Court of Appeal ruled against the defendants both because of that. Not getting a copy of the verdict is not a force majeure, it is just a special circumstance. Must file before the end of the appeal period. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4134/2556.
           According to the Civil Code Section 23, Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has extended the length of time that the request for extended period when the special circumstances. A request must be made before the end of that period. Except in case of force majeure, it may be requested even after that period. For the defendant's case The defendant failed to comply with the original court order to file an appeal filed within the deadline. But appeals court orders. It is the case that the defendant chose to exercise the right to appeal proceedings against the Court of First Instance. And choose not to follow the court order to give the defendant the opportunity to amend the appeal filed within the deadline. The subsequent 4 rd Appeal Court ruled in favor of the Court of First Instance. The defendant then extended the appeal period. Upon the expiration of the period of time, the defendant filed the appeal to file a new appeal is not a force majeure, the court will allow the extension of the appeal period to the defendant. There are no objections to the defendant can not appeal within the court of first instance. The defendant petitioned. When the defendant exercised his right to appeal the court order, it would cause the time to file a lawsuit by the defendant stumbled. The time elapsed between the appeals not deducted from the period of time prescribed by the Court of First Instance is that the length of the appeals under the Criminal Procedure Code The age of the Civil and Commercial Code will stumble. There is no law, as the defendant claimed, so that the Court of First Instance has an injunction to extend the appeal period to the defendant is not in favor of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 23, Section 15 of the case is a legal problem. About peace No party appeals. The Fourth Appeal was raised by the SEC under Section 195 paragraph two.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 842 - 844/2010
               To be considered a force majeure under Section 8 must be caused by the absence of the person. And must not be prevented, even if the victim is careful to take care of it. The defendant allocated land and announced the sale of land plots and homes to the general public as well as the fifteen consumers who did not prepare the investment ready when the problem with investment. In the meantime, financial institutions stopped lending in the meantime, causing the construction of residential houses to be suspended. It is the defendant's fault, not prepared to prevent it. Can be done It is not a force majeure that will cause the defendant to be released from liability.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6235/2551.
               Force majeure must be unprotected. Even with proper care. The defendant claims that the wheel bearing trailer on the right is causing the trailer to fall off. The truck was damaged and the car was insured with the plaintiff in case it can not be considered a force majeure because the car user must monitor the equipment that is composed of the car, which is the device outside. And within Some devices are visually detectable. Some pieces deteriorate according to usage conditions. All of them must be supervised by the user, whether the inspection itself as a defendant to control the vehicle. Or by any other person who has a duty, the defendant will claim that the wheel bearing is an internal device. Not the inspection of the first defendant, which is only the driver.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5564/2551.
           The defendant is an investor in real estate projects that are distributed to the public. It is expected to receive high returns. It requires a high investment. Therefore, there must be a careful planning in marketing and forecasting. To be able to take high risks. Despite the economic crisis and the government's policy solution will have an impact. General Business Including the defendant. But it is not a condition that the defendant can not predict. Therefore, the defendant did not build the house can not be heard because of force majeure. The defendant is a breach. Consumers prefer to terminate the contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5419/2550.
             The plaintiff filed a petition to extend the appeal period after the expiration of the appeal period. It is the case that the plaintiff did not file a petition to extend the appeal period before the end of the appeal period. The plaintiff is required to file a case with force majeure. The force majeure under Section 23 of the Civil Code Section 23, Section 15, which means that the court can not have the order to extend the period or the couple can not have such a request before the end of the period. Time to do the law one. This is a circumstance beyond what can be done before the end of the legal period.

If the plaintiff is sick and can not help themselves. The plaintiff may be the plaintiff's wife, who is the caretaker of the plaintiff in the illness as the plaintiff claimed in the petition is to contact the plaintiff's attorney, who has the power to appeal to extend the appeal period before the end of the appeal period or appeal within the deadline. Appeal The period is one month from the date the Court of First Instance read the verdict to the plaintiff. It is a long time that the plaintiff will act as scheduled. The plea in the plaintiff's petition is not force majeure. The plea to the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff was sued and the plaintiff's lawyer in the province is not force majeure as well.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5205/2550.
         No rain and no winds. At the junction of the highway along the highway to the death of a motorcyclist along the highway until the death of the dead not caused by force majeure. However, due to the fault of the Department of Highways, the defendants did not cut down and abandoned the defendant's officials to cut down the Chamchuri tree with hollows to prevent damage to others. The violation of the defendant. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3077 - 3078/2550.
            A request for enforcement must be made within 10 years from the date of the judgment or order. For the time period set forth in Civil Code Section 271, the court has the power to issue an order to extend or shorten the period. By no means required. It can only be done when there is a special circumstance. And the court has ordered before the end of that period. Except in the case of force majeure in accordance with Section 23 of the Civil and Commercial Code, the Court of First Instance read the judgment of the Supreme Court dated October 3, 2537. Both petitioners asked the Court of First Instance to issue a regulation and send the regulations to the two guarantors. According to the petition dated September 1, 2003, September 23, 2003 and November 19, 2003, it remained within 10 years, but the Court of First Instance issued an order for the petition. Both petitioners appealed the court order. The Court of First Instance ordered the appeal on January 8, 2004 and read the judgment of the Court of Appeal 8 on July 13, 2005, which sentenced the Court of First Instance to issue the regulations and sent the regulations to the two guarantors under the guarantee agreement, dated August 2, 1990, The next case, and it is a special circumstance. However, the enforcement time has expired during the consideration of the 8th Circuit Court. The court of first instance, which has the power to enforce the case, can not have an extension of the enforcement period before the end of that period. So there is force majeure. Subsequently, the two petitioners filed a statement requesting the Court of First Instance to issue a regulation and send the regulations to the two guarantors. The Court of First Instance has the authorization to do so. The court has ordered the extension of the enforcement period. Otherwise, enforcement can not continue. Both parties are entitled to execute the case from the securities of the two guarantors under Section 274 of the Civil Code, but the Court of First Instance to extend the enforcement period without time. The Supreme Court is scheduled to complete.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 663/2550.
            On June 3, 2005, the defendant lodged a petition requesting an extension of the 30-day appeal period. The Court of First Instance allowed the extension until June 17, 2005, which falls on Friday. The defendant has a lawyer and the case is not complicated. The appeal can be appealed to the court within the said period. But the defendant has not appealed. The defendant's lawyer filed an appeal on June 20, 2005, extending the appeal period for another three days, claiming that the defendant's defense appealed the case to the Court of First Instance, but during traffic congestion due to the construction of a new bridge. Have a car collide. The defendant's lawyer traveled to the Court of First Instance at almost 30 minutes to work and can not appeal immediately. This is why you can protect and anticipate it. Case is not force majeure under Section 8 of the defendant will extend the appeal period.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1480/2549.
            The plaintiff's claim that the tax invoice can not be presented because it refused to deliver the account and documents returned to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff can not request a replacement tax invoice from the taxpayer because the plaintiff does not know what the tax invoice. It is not the case that the tax invoice is destroyed by force majeure. It is not the case that the plaintiff can not apply for a tax invoice because the tax invoice issuer can not issue a tax invoice because of force majeure. Section 82/5 (1) of the Revenue Code and the Director-General of the Revenue Department. Clause 2 of the VAT on the calculation of value added tax under Section 82/3

Judgment of the Supreme Court 528/2549.
          While the debtor filed a request for business rehabilitation on June 10, 2003, the debtor received the rights and benefits under Section 28 Exemption of import duty on machinery as approved by the Board of Investment. Subsequently, when the Board of Investment issued an order dated 25 December, the rights and benefits granted to the debtor were revoked. Therefore, it can be considered that the debtor has never been exempted or reduced tax and early taxable income, while keeping the price and tax rates on the day of importation as a basis for calculating taxes in accordance with. Section 55. Therefore, the value of tax debts payable by both creditors to the debtors for repayment and repayment of debt repayment in the business rehabilitation is a debt that occurred before the court date. The order restores the business of the debtor that both creditors may apply for repayment of debt restructuring. And when the bankruptcy court ordered the rehabilitation of the debtors and set up the debtor as the planner. Both creditors were not informed of the order to set up the planner by the official receiver because no two creditor names appear on the creditor account. According to the facts, it is considered that. It is a special circumstance and there is force majeure that both creditors can not apply for repayment within one month from the date the official adjudicator advertise the plan. Section 90/36 of the Bankruptcy Act, and both creditors have accelerated the process of government service to file a request for debt repayment within the business rehabilitation within a reasonable time after knowing that the debtor entered the rehabilitation process. already Therefore, it is reasonable to accept the repayment of both creditors to consider further.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8659/2548.
               Court of First Instance read the sentence to the defendant on February 18, 2004, the defendant must appeal within one month from the date of reading the judgment. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 198, paragraph one, the counting of the starting time shall be counted as the first day of the first day of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/3, paragraph two, starting from February 19, 2004, Appeal Must be enforced by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/5 on February 19, 2004 is not the beginning of the month, the period is not a month can not be calculated on the calendar year. The deadline is March 18, 2004, the day before the last day of the month, which is the date of the start of the period. No February February, 11 days and March 2004 are 19 days to 30 days according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/6, paragraph one and paragraph three. Because these provisions are counted as a month and a day. Or set to month and month. Not a month.

The request for extension of time for appeals in criminal cases under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 23, in conjunction with the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 15, shall be made before the end of the appeals process. The term "force majeure" under Section 23 of the Civil Procedure Code means that the court can not issue an order to extend the period of time or a party can not make such request before the end of the period. The law can be any one. This is a circumstance beyond what can be done before the end of the legal period.

The defendant claimed the extension of time because the defendant was unable to check the evidence, the plaintiffs have a lot and other evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant is a Ramkhamhaeng University student and is currently undergoing field examinations in Bangkok. The defendant's defense can not find the defendant and ask for details in time for the appeal. With the defendant's lawyers have to prosecute many more cases. When the case is not very expressive. The problem is not complicated enough that the defendant can not inspect or make an appeal. Or ask the facts from the defendant again. It is not considered a case of force majeure to be requested after the due date of the appeal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8658/2548.
             Defendant extends the appeal period. Court Case Defendant has the right to appeal the order to the Court of Appeal 7, according to P. 193 paragraph one, the Court of Appeal 7 not accept the appeal of the defendant and judge the appeal. It's not like The Supreme Court deems it expedient to diagnose the problem that there are grounds to extend the time for the defendant to appeal or not to return the expression to the Court of Appeal. 7.

The defendant's attorney believes that the court hearing and the former lawyer allowed the extension of the appeal period until January 20, 2004, and that the defendant's lawyer would not be able to see the court order every day. Self It is the defect of the defense attorney. The case is not force majeure. There is no reason to extend the time to appeal to the defendant under Section 23 of the Civil Code Section 23, Section 15.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5730/2548.
           Court of First Instance read the verdict to the hearing on January 20, 2004, due to appeal on February 20, 2004 on the defendant's Appeal deadline to file an extension of the appeal period of 30 days. The Court of First Instance allowed the extension of the appeal period to March 19, 2004. Later on March 22, 2004, which expired the appeal period. The defendant filed a petition for appeal and filed an appeal claiming that the offender was not guilty of pursuing a defendant. The Court of First Instance has the order that, for the sake of justice, And the order of the defendant's appeal. The case of the defendant is a case of petition for extension of the appeal period after the appeal period has expired. The defendant will extend the period only in case of force majeure under Section 23 of the Civil Code Section 23, Section 15, the defendant's defense does not follow the defendant's negligence. The defendant It is not a force majeure that the defendant has the right to file an extension of the appeal period at the end of the appeal period. Court of First Instance has no authority to extend the appeal period to the defendant. When the defendant appealed on 22 March 2004, the extension of the appeal period was extended. The order of the court of first instance to the defendant's appeal is not liked. The Court of Appeals 4 ruling of the defendant's appeal and the Court of First Instance ordered the petition of the defendant did not like it as well. The problem is legal issues related to peace. There are no parties to raise a petition. The Supreme Court has the power to raise the decision under the second paragraph of Section 195 paragraph two of Section 225.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1927/2546.
             Request for extending the appeal period of the defendant, the first defendant to name the defendant and the petitioner only. The petition is a defendant's first defendant, in particular, to interpret that the defendant filed a petition to extend the defendant's time to 2 to 5 with no finding that the defendant 2 to 5 misunderstood that. The Court of First Instance allowed the extension of the appeal period means that all the defendants. It is not force majeure. When the defendants 2 to 5 did not file a petition to extend the appeal period before the end of the period prescribed by the Court. And the claim is not force majeure, which will be requested after the end of time to file an appeal under the Civil Procedure Code Section 23, so there is no reason to extend the appeal period to the defendant 2 to 5.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1678/2546.
           The defendant bought the fabric from the plaintiff. The defendant could not pay the debt to the plaintiff because the buyer of the fabric of the defendant has a financial problem can not pay the debt to the defendant. It is a business. The normal profit or loss of trade is always occurring. May not be considered as force majeure, the defendant will be released from liability under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 219, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1374/2546.
             Term of the payer is 1 year from the date of check due under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1002, so the check dated August 5, 2540 will be due on August 5, 1998 appears on the due date. The plaintiff filed a petition to the Khon Kaen Provincial Court, where the plaintiff is domiciled. The plaintiff proposes the clerk to bring the lawsuit filed with the Udon Thani Provincial Court with the district court over the case, but the money the lawyer's clerk is prepared not enough for the fee. Clerk of the lawyer brought the complaint back to Khon Kaen and informed the plaintiff at 16 o'clock, which is a force majeure that the plaintiff can not return to file a lawsuit Udon Thani. The lawsuit was filed at the court of Khon Kaen. Judge Khon Kaen Provincial Court ordered that. "The order is equal to the acceptance that the plaintiff can not process the case in the lower court of the case by force majeure under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 10, although the Khon Kaen Provincial Court will. No orders to receive the plaintiff. But the judge of the Khon Kaen Provincial Court ordered the petition and sent to the Udon Thani Provincial Court to consider it. It is considered that the Khon Kaen Provincial Court has accepted the plaintiff's complaint. The Khon Kaen Provincial Court will send the indictment to the Udon Thani Provincial Court for further consideration, it is a court procedure not related to the couple. The Udon Thani Provincial Court will order the plaintiff's complaint after the plaintiff's lawsuit. The plaintiff's case filed the case within the age of the case is not a case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1074/2546.
               The problem that the defendant delivered rice is not force majeure. The defendant claims the burden of proof on this issue to the defendant.

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More