Interpretation of documents in doubt

Section 10, when one of the documents may be interpreted as two What is the implication? It is better to accept the implications.

Section 11 In case of doubt To be interpreted in a way that is you to the party who will be responsible for the debt.

Section 12 In the case where the amount or quantity in the document is expressed in both letters and numbers. If letters and numbers do not match And no real intentions. The amount or amount of letters is approximately.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 886/2548.
                The plaintiff's power of attorney stating: "We, the Company, by H and C, the authorized directors of the company as follows ... Clause 1 The representative shall have the power to sue ... Clause 9 ... shall have the power to appoint a representative. To have the power and to exercise the power mentioned above in all respects ... "And another power of attorney letter. "With this letter, I am the company. Appointed and / or A. To represent the company. And the power to act on behalf of the company is as follows ... "Although the power of attorney to the latter indicates that the attorney acting as the plaintiff's authorized director. Not specified that act as a representative of the plaintiff, but the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 10 states that "when one of the documents may be interpreted as two. What is the implication? Let's assume that. The plaintiff sued the case. The plaintiff sued the case. With the citation of the two power of attorney is evidence. The plaintiff's lawyer said that. The lawyer is the plaintiff. To be deemed to be intended to sign and seal the plaintiff in the power of attorney in the latter to authorize the range of e. And / or A. this case as authorized by the plaintiff. Has been acting as the plaintiff's authorized director in any way. The plaintiff sued.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8374/2559.
            Labor contract between the plaintiff, the employer and the first defendant, who is employed. The first defendant who served as a senior sales executive. It is the duty of the plaintiff to conduct business of coal. To work with any other employer who conducts trades of the same nature or competes with the plaintiff within two years from the termination of the employment contract. It is a reciprocal agreement that preserves the rights and benefits of the parties as they like. It is not unreasonable or unfavorable to enter into a contract to enter into unfair contract terms. It applies to the defendant, who signed the agreement in the contract. The defendant resigned and then work with other companies that operate the same as the plaintiff within two years from the date of termination of employment of the plaintiff. The defendant's labor contract was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff under the labor contract.

A guarantee is a contract where the guarantor has a single liability. The interpretation of the liability to the guarantor must be strictly. Will be interpreted in the way of extending the liability of the guarantor beyond the express statement of the contract can not.

Defendant 2 contract to guarantee the work of the defendant to the plaintiff with the message. To guarantee the damage or liability of the plaintiff, the defendant, the plaintiff has caused, whether intentionally or negligently cause the plaintiff to be damaged. Or responsible for any damage to any person or entity. Present and future The guarantor promises to compensate for all damages as true damage instead of the employee until the end without any dispute or legal argument. The allegation as to cause such responsibility is a clear contract without the defendant to clear the two defendants liable for the defendant to the status of an employee of the plaintiff and then work with other employers conducting business. The same or competitive with the plaintiff within two years from the termination of employment. It must be interpreted as a defense to the second defendant, which is the loss of the debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 11, the defendant is not liable in the case that the defendant is no longer employed by the plaintiff. Work with other employers who conduct business of the same nature or competition with the plaintiff within two years from the termination of the employment contract with the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6925/2557.
         Defendant sent the same notice to the plaintiff's appeals to the plaintiff by registered mail. 2 times the first sent to the address of the plaintiff's house registration. Received on February 24, 2009, the second time to the employer's premises, as the plaintiff informed in the appeal that it is a convenient place to contact. Recipient on March 16, 2009, counting the time to bring the case to court must be interpreted as a plaintiff to the plaintiff in the debt of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 11, starting from the date the plaintiff was notified. Appeal of the Second Appeal Board

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1233/2554.
        Although the pledge agreement under the book, the plaintiff will be named as a pledge, and called on the pledgee and the pledgee. But the essence of the pledge of the rights of the counterpart of the depositor is significant to the liability of the defendant in the case that the defendant does not agree to pay the debt to the plaintiff. Case 2, the first case that the defendant brought a pair of books. Pledge to allow the Bank of Thailand to deduct the debts of the defendant, 1 from the payment of the second defendant's payment to the defendant, the second case stated that if the defendant is still owed to the Bank of Thailand, the second defendant agreed. Accept the wrong payment to the bank and complete the agreement to accept as a guarantor and agree with the defendant that the defendant to pay debts under the contract that the defendant is a bank and agree with the defendant. 1 as a debtor. The contract is clear that the Bank intends the two defendants to be liable in both cases, and the second defendant is bound by the contract of pledge the right to a deposit book to guarantee the repayment of both banks. The plaintiff's pledge agreement is clear that the defendant is liable as a pledgee, his bookmate and a guarantor to accept. Wrong with the defendant in the first place, there is no doubt that it will be interpreted in a way that you are a party to the party who will be the debt in the debt under Section 11 no.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13730/2557.
          The interest set in the overdraft is written in the letter. The MLR is 1.25 percent per annum but is 14.75 percent per annum, which is different because the MLR rate announced by the Plaintiff at the time was 12 percent. Per year, when charged, the interest rate is 13.25 percent per annum, when letters and numbers do not match and can not be used for real intentions. The interest rate specified in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 12 and 13. Judgment of the Supreme Court 1879/2542. The plaintiff's complaint shows the source of damages 104,347 baht as parts and repair costs. one One car lottery camp And a certain amount of interest. Which amount to three When combined together, it will be 104,347 baht as the following text in the bracket to 104,347 baht (16 thousand, three hundred and forty seven baht) is caused by typos. This is not the case. Or the amount in the document is expressed in both letters and numbers. If the alphabet with numbers Do not match and can not deliberate. True The amount or amount of letters. As estimated by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 12 because the plaintiff sued the true intention, clearly. The plaintiff asked the two defendants to pay damages of 104,347 baht, not "fourteen thousand three hundred and forty seven only." Therefore, the two lower courts to the defendant to pay 102,742 baht plus interest, If the amount or quantity in the document is expressed in several letters or numbers. But many of them do not match. And no real intentions. Article 14 In the case where a document is made in several languages Whether it is the same or multiple versions, the Thai language. If the text in different languages ​​is different. The intent of the parties is not to use any language. To be held in Thai.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1254/2546.
      The defendant's dismissal was made in two languages, English and Thai, in the same edition. Although the defendant is a foreign company, but it operates in Thailand. And the plaintiff and other employees of the defendant is Thai, so even if the book is not clearly stated. If the text in English is different from the Thai text, use the English text. The case may not be considered as the intent of the parties to use any language. Must comply with the text of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, Section 14, when the Thai language to identify the plaintiff because the defendant dismissed the plaintiff because of the lack of responsibility and performance of the plaintiff is not acceptable. defendant It is not the defendant to terminate the plaintiff without compensation under the Labor Protection Act, Section 119. The defendant will raise the grounds for the said claim to not pay compensation to the plaintiff later not obtained under the Labor Protection Section. Section 17, the defendant must pay compensation to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6925/2557.
     Defendant sent the same notice to the plaintiff's appeals to the plaintiff by registered mail. 2 times the first sent to the address of the plaintiff's house registration. Received on February 24, 2009, the second time to the employer's premises, as the plaintiff informed in the appeal that it is a convenient place to contact. Recipient on March 16, 2009, counting the time to bring the case to court must be interpreted as a plaintiff to the plaintiff in the debt of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 11, starting from the date the plaintiff was notified. Appeal of the Second Appeal Board

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1233/2554.
        Although the pledge agreement under the book, the plaintiff will be named as a pledge, and called on the pledgee and the pledgee. But the essence of the pledge of the rights of the counterpart of the depositor is significant to the liability of the defendant in the case that the defendant does not agree to pay the debt to the plaintiff. Case 2, the first case that the defendant brought a pair of books. Pledge to allow the Bank of Thailand to deduct the debts of the defendant, 1 from the payment of the second defendant's payment to the defendant, the second case stated that if the defendant is still owed to the Bank of Thailand, the second defendant agreed. Accept the wrong payment to the bank and complete the agreement to accept as a guarantor and agree with the defendant that the defendant to pay debts under the contract that the defendant is a bank and agree with the defendant. 1 as a debtor. The contract is clear that the Bank intends the two defendants to be liable in both cases, and the second defendant is bound by the contract of pledge the right to a deposit book to guarantee the repayment of both banks. The plaintiff's pledge agreement is clear that the defendant is liable as a pledgee, his bookmate and a guarantor to accept. Wrong with the defendant in the first place, there is no doubt that it will be interpreted in a way that you are a party to the party who will be the debt in the debt under Section 11 no.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15221/2551.
      When there is no amendment to the contract documents, letter 1 to be clear about the liability of the defendant No. 5 to be liable in any amount, with a space to fill numbers or text. It is a case of doubt. It must be interpreted in the way that you are a party to the debt that is due to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 11, when compared with the guarantee documents, letter No. 2, which the plaintiff allowed the defendant. Guarantor 4 defendant in the amount not exceeding 20,000 baht, then it must be heard. The plaintiff is willing to allow the defendant to 5 liability under the guarantee of up to 20,000 baht, with the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff under the guarantee agreement document No. 1 without limiting the plaintiff's claim as in any way.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8816/2551.
       The plaintiff loan the defendant agreed to transfer the right to claim the rental car rental receivable. The payment to the plaintiff to the defendant to guarantee payment. And when the obligation to transfer the claim to the insurance is fully refunded. Defendant must transfer the claim back to the plaintiff. The transfer agreement claims that. This contract is in force until the pledged contractual obligation of the plaintiff to be liable to the defendant will be fully refunded. The word in the contract. "Contract between the transferor. The word "any other contract made between the transferor and the transferee", where the two parties between the transferor is the plaintiff and the transferee is the defendant, thus referring to the loan agreement. The two parties must do is not the executive contract, which is a multi-party agreement. If the claim is to be secured as collateral under the management contract with the transferor and the transferee, it should be clearly stated. In addition to the loan agreement. The contract of assignment of claims as security for management contracts. If the management contract is a major contract that requires the right to claim rent. Buy a car as collateral against the contract. It should be clearly stated in the transfer agreement. Translation of the agreement that the contract of assignment is a guarantee of management contract. Not subject to the provisions of Section 11 of the Civil and Commercial Code. That's the rule. "In case of doubt. To be interpreted in a way that you are a party to the party that will lose on that debt. "So when the plaintiff to pay the debt. Defendant must transfer all claims transferred under the contract to the plaintiff.

The defendant opened a deposit account with the bank. The defendant is the party to the deposit with the bank. And will have the right to restore property deposited under the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 665, even if the defendant will transfer the rights and interests in the deposit account. And the right to receive or withdraw money from the account to others.

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 meeting, 2005)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5384/2548.
        Land mortgage agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant has a clear definition. Mortgage land dispute in addition to the debt secured by the loan from the defendant to the defendant at the time of the contract. It also includes a debt guarantee that will be borrowed from the defendant in the future. If the land dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant is still binding. The mortgage limit that the plaintiff will be liable for a total of not more than 260,000 baht, which is provided by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 681, paragraph two and Section 707, when the mortgage agreement set the mortgage amount, the plaintiff will be liable for not more than 260,000 baht, showing the intent of. The plaintiff will be liable for such debts. After the land mortgage dispute, the MPs have borrowed 50,000 baht, which is still under full mortgage. Although the defendant was fully paid on January 3, 2003, but the plaintiff and the defendant did not agree to terminate the mortgage agreement. Later, on January 24, 2003, MP borrowed $ 130,000 from the defendant, not exceeding the amount that the plaintiff will be liable for the loan after the debt in the future. Mortgage debt, which is owed to the equipment, covers the debt. Owe the president I need to register the mortgage to the new authority. When the land dispute dispute is clear. Mortgage debt in the future. There is no doubt to be interpreted in a way that is to you, the party that will be lost in the debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 11, but not any. The existing defendant. The plaintiff has a duty to be liable to the defendant under the mortgage agreement, which insured the loan, the mortgage agreement is not suspended. Defendant has the right not to redeem the mortgage land disputes to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2888/2549.
            Plaintiff employed a defendant to transport goods Durian. Both sides expect that the cargo will arrive in Taiwan not later than March 25, 2000. However, the ships used for cargo transportation are not able to continue their journey. Dispute shipping and the investigation was completed on March 30, 2000, after which the plaintiff and the defendant to negotiate with each other constantly with a book. The books of the defendants. 1, with the plaintiff dated February 7, 2001, according to document No. 7, entitled "Consent to extend the period of three months until June 25, 2001." From the circumstances, it is clear that the defendant's letter 1 Document 7 shall be made before 1 year from the time the goods should be delivered. To do so is binding. Actually, the interpretation of the intentions of the provisions of Section 171 to focus on the true intent more than the expression of the word. If the plaintiff sued the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the court by June 25, 2001, and this consent shall apply mutatis mutandis. Marine Division of the Marine proceeds Section 47. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the first time, so it is not expired.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4057/2548.
           A guarantee contract is a contract where the guarantor is liable only. The interpretation of the liability to the guarantor must be strictly. Will be interpreted in the way of extending the liability of the guarantor beyond the express statement of the contract can not. The defendant entered into a contract guaranteeing the work of any of the defendants will guarantee the work of the defendant from the date of the guarantee. Not to guarantee the debt owed to the plaintiff before the date the defendant agreed to become a guarantor, which extends the liability of the guarantor. If the plaintiff wishes the defendant to be liable for the debt that occurred before the date of the defendant as a guarantor, it must be clearly stated. When the contract is not clearly stated that the defendant misconduct in the debt that occurred before the contract date. The debt that the plaintiff sued to the plaintiff caused before the defendant to become a guarantor. Defendant is not liable to pay the debt to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3325/2548.
              Interpretation of the intentions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 171 refers to the case of legal acts made clear. Or conflicting messages It may be interpreted as many. If the contract is clear. There is no need to interpret the intentions of the parties. This case, the defendant borrowed the plaintiff and brought the land to the pledge agreement with the plaintiff. And the mortgage letter. "The mortgagor agrees to mortgage the land to the mortgagee. To guarantee their own debt to the mortgagee. And the parties agree to hold this mortgage as evidence of the loan. For the amount of 48,000 baht, the interest is 15% per annum. "The Court of First Instance brought other text other than the agreement in the contract to translate the intention of the counterparty in a manner suspected plaintiff agreed to take interest from. Defendant or not. No need to interpret the intentions, because the message in the clear contract. The court ruled that the plaintiff to the defendant to borrow money without interest, it is not like.

The court heard that. The plaintiff's indictment of the loan and mortgaging of the mortgage is groundless and not contrary to law. The court has the power to judge the plaintiff to win this case. But the Court did not judge the mortgage detention to sell the money to pay the plaintiff to the plaintiff. The judgment of the Court of First Instance in the application for enforcement of this mortgage is invalid. The diagnosis to you as the plaintiff, but not according to it. It can be considered that the judgment of the Court of First Instance not settled in all the indictments. I do not like the Civil Code Section 142.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 886/2548.
            The plaintiff's power of attorney stating: "We, the Company, by H and C, the authorized directors of the company as follows ... Clause 1 The representative shall have the power to sue ... Clause 9 ... shall have the power to appoint a representative. To have the power and to exercise the power mentioned above in all respects ... "And another power of attorney letter. "With this letter, I am the company. Appointed and / or A. To represent the company. And the power to act on behalf of the company is as follows ... "Although the power of attorney to the latter indicates that the attorney acting as the plaintiff's authorized director. Not specified that act as a representative of the plaintiff, but the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 10 states that "when one of the documents may be interpreted as two. What is the implication? Let's assume that. The plaintiff sued the case. The plaintiff sued the case. With the citation of the two power of attorney is evidence. The plaintiff's lawyer said that. The lawyer is the plaintiff. It must be assumed that the intention to sign and seal the plaintiff in the power of attorney to the latter. A power of attorney and / or. A. This case as authorized by the plaintiff. Has been acting as the plaintiff's authorized director in any way. The plaintiff sued.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5320 - 5325/2547.
            The plaintiff's complaint was that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff by unfair and described that the plaintiff is very old, and then work hard because of the burden and find a new job. For the court to use for the determination of damages to the plaintiff. And there are petition to the defendant to pay special compensation. Do not use the word damages. When reading the indictment and the filing at the end of the lawsuit. It is clear enough to be interpreted as referring to the damage and determination of damages to the plaintiff. The Central Labor Court's interpretation of the lawsuit is a more accurate interpretation of the intent of the words, expressions or letters under Section 171 is not in doubt, until Article 11 is interpreted to the Central Labor Court. Therefore, the defendant has the power to pay damages from unfair dismissal to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1651/2547.
            Plaintiffs defend the compromise agreement in court. The defendant registered to transfer the ownership of land disputes to the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of the contract compromise. The plaintiff agreed to pay the defendant 200,000 baht on the date of registration of land disputes. If the defendant defaulted. Defendant agrees to the plaintiff to accept the compromise agreement and the contract. Compromise to register the transfer of ownership immediately and is considered a show. The intent of the defendant is the purpose of the compromise agreement, so the plaintiff is the defendant. Settlement of disputes between the defendant will transfer the land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff will. Pay the price to the defendant The time limit is 6 months, so it is time for the plaintiff to comply with the contract. If not, then the lawsuit will be enforced to fulfill the purpose of the contract. Dispute settlement between them. If it does not comply with the contract within the deadline, then the requirements in The compromise agreement was terminated by the parties without any obligation to comply with the agreement, since no dispute was settled between the defendant and the plaintiff. When the plaintiff made a payment of 200,000 baht to the court, even if it exceeds 6 months, the defendant must receive money and have the duty to register the transfer of ownership of land disputes to the plaintiff if the defendant does not practice. The plaintiff would like to enforce the compromise agreement.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 679/2547.
         Interpretation of the contract must be in accordance with the will in good faith, with respect to the usual, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 368. Also consider the true intentions more than words, expressions or letters. Section 171 with the name of the contract is strictly prohibited. The text in the contract along with the evidence that. The plaintiff and the defendant intended to transfer the master tape 1 master only. The intent is not to transfer the copyright in the music in any way. Copyright in the music is also the defendant's one, so the four defendants together produce masterpieces of the 14 songs are three songs, which are different versions of the master tape that the defendant transferred to the plaintiff is not a modification. The music is copyright infringement of the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6563/2545.
            Civil and Commercial Code, Section 171 that. To interpret the intentions. The aim is to set the real intention rather than words, expressions, or letters, that is, the legal case that made the message is not clear. There are conflicting messages, or may be interpreted as many. If the contract is clear. There is no need to interpret the intentions.

Mortgage agreement with the end of the mortgage agreement is clearly stated that the mortgage contract is secured by the defendant's debt 2 to the plaintiff as follows: The provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 171 to force the person to asses to interpret the intent. True, the parties can not. Because it is prohibited by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 94 (b). Mortgage land agreement with the mortgage agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is a mortgage contract is secured by the defendant's debt 2 to the plaintiff, the defendant is not liable for the debt of the defendant 1 to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6509/2545.
           The defendant made a loan application from the plaintiff's bank agreed to pay interest to the plaintiff at the rate of 14.5 percent per annum and on the same day. The defendant entered into a loan agreement with the plaintiff. With the interest rate of 19 percent per year, the defendant has already received a loan, it can be seen that the loan application is only the offer of the defendant proposed to the plaintiff. The loan agreement is a contractual agreement made after the plaintiff. Consider the offer of the defendant. The plaintiff sets interest rates of 19 percent per year, so the message or facts about the interest in the plaintiff's loan amount to the defendant is clear, no text is suspicious or two-sided. Must be interpreted according to the true intent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to bring witnesses to change interest rates in the loan agreement. Money that the rate of 19 percent per year is the interest rate that the defendant defaulted because it is prohibited to be prosecuted under the Code. Civil Procedure Code Section 94 (b)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5678/2545.
            The defendant entered into a contract to sell the land to the plaintiff for 60 million baht. The plaintiff made a deposit on the contract date is 2 million and will pay 16 The remaining 8 months is the date of registration of land transfer. The remaining amount of about 42 million, the plaintiff will pay a promissory note, which is scheduled to use the money after the ownership transfer for about a year, the contract does not indicate that the pledge of the pledge must be avalanche. In such a case, the court must find out the true intention of the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with their will in good faith, in accordance with the normal customs under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 368 and in the interpretation of intent must be focused on the true intent. The words, expressions or letters of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 171. When the plaintiff, which has a better economic status than the defendant. Negotiations in the contract than the defendant. The defendant will receive the remaining 42 million baht is a promissory note after a contract for two years, so that the pledge of the plaintiff's pledge to the defendant, the defendant does not guarantee that the money will be paid when the promissory note. set In addition, after the contract, the plaintiff borrowed money from banks to invest in projects for land contracted with the defendant, including 155 million baht to avalue promissory note 43 million, which is equal to the amount of promissory notes in this case. It shows that in practice and normal, the tradition of trading land is high. If the land buyer must issue a promissory note to pay the land, the issuer must provide the bank with aval. This tradition, even if not written in the contract, must be treated as an agreement that the parties must implicitly. The plaintiff issued a promissory note to pay the land to the defendant without aval to the bank. Defendant has the right to refuse to accept the debt with a promissory note. I can not defend the contract.

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More