Section 194 With the power of
debt Creditors will have the right to call the debtors. The debt repayment with
any one will have it.
Section 195 when the property
which is the object of the debt is stated, but only as a category. And if the
condition of the act. The intention of the parties can not determine what kind
of property will be. You will need to deliver the medium.
If the debtor has done the
right thing to do to deliver the property in all respects, then it is. If the
debtor has chosen the property to be delivered with the consent of the
creditors. You are the object of the debt originally, but that time.
Section 196. If the money is
denominated in foreign currency You will be sent in Thai currency.
Change this money Calculate
the exchange rate at the place and time spent.
Section 197. If the debt is to
be used in a particular currency. This is a type that is not used at the time
to send money to use it. Sending money to you as if not specified to use that
currency.
Section 198. If there are many
things to do to pay debts, there are many. But it must be done only one way.
You have the right to choose to do something to the debtor. Unless otherwise
agreed otherwise.
Section 199. The selection
shall be made by the other party to the other party.
The repayment has been made in
any way. You should be considered alone. It is a debt settlement to be done
early.
Section 200, if required,
within a specified period. And the right parties to choose not to choose within
that time. You have the right to choose to fall to the other.
If not set time When debt is
due Those who have no right to choose may be given reasonable time. Then tell
the other party to exercise the right to choose within that time.
Section 201. If outsiders
choose. You make a statement of intent to the debtor. And the debtor must
notify the creditor.
If outsiders can not choose
it. Or will not choose. You have the right to choose to fall to the debtors.
Section 202 If there are many
things to do to pay off debt And one of them is not possible to do early. Or become
impossible later. You limit that debt only to other payments that are not
impossible. This limitation does not occur. If the repayment becomes impossible
because of one of the circumstances that the party with no right to choose is
responsible.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10346/2559.
When the court ruled that the
two defendants together to lease the car to the plaintiff. If the return is not
used, the price instead of the defendant to make a repayment each time in the
order. It is not necessary to make a lot of debt to be selected under Section
198 so that the debts of the two defendants must repay before the debt to
deliver the car. It shows that the plaintiff still owns the car lease and have
the right to track back when the car is still available. Both plaintiffs can
enforce the defendant two night rental car. Incidentally, the debt will be
forced to use the price instead of the lease car delivery will be? The debt can
not be determined by the course. So do not set interest on the price of car instead.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9274/2559.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant to pay damages from unfair dismissal in Thai. The Central Labor Court
likes to judge the two defendants jointly pay the unfair dismissal in Thai
currency to the plaintiff. The debt to the plaintiff sued. Both defendants
agreed to pay the last US dollar to the plaintiff. On July 8, 2010, the Central
Labor Court heard the fact that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation in
US dollars. Both defendants agreed to pay the last US dollar to the plaintiff.
Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation 40,249.98 US dollars. Both defendants
pay partial compensation in US dollars. Outstanding plaintiff is another $
4,750, which debt repayment is a debt designated in foreign currency. If both
defendants pay in Thai currency, it is done by the exchange rate at the place
and at the time spent under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 196,
paragraph two, which is the right of the debtor to choose to pay debts. The
court has no power to change the rights of the two defendants who are debtors
alone. The Central Labor Court judges the defendants to pay compensation for
the deficit in Thai currency, using the exchange rate on the date of payment of
some compensation. Do not like with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 196,
paragraph two.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
13244/2558.
Calculation of compensation
and wages instead of advance notice, based on the final rate paid in Singapore
dollars. The compensation for unfair dismissal is based on the compensation
paid to the plaintiff for consideration. The price of the plane ticket to the
plaintiff is attested that the price is in Singapore dollars. The Central Labor
Court's decision to pay in Singapore dollars, with the exchange rate at the place
and time spent under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 196, paragraph two,
to prevent the advantage or disadvantage of fluctuations in exchange rates. To
make it fair to the couple. Judgment of the Central Labor Court in this
section.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9476/2558.
The Central Intellectual
Property and International Trade Court ruled that the person who objected to
payment of foreign currency at the exchange rate specified in the Notification
of the Bank of Thailand on the due date of payment under the arbitral award. It
is not required by Section 196 of the debtors to use the Thai currency, the
exchange rate at the place and time spent. It is correct to correct.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9784/2556.
Although the Central
Intellectual Property and International Trade Court ruled that the defendant
will pay in US dollars, but the defendant has the option to pay in Thai
currency under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 196 by the defendant.
Payment is in Thai Baht. Calculate the average rate of commercial banks at the
place and on the date of use. If there is no exchange rate on that date. The
last day that the exchange rate before the date of use.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12430/2013.
The message under Clause 2 is
about Mrs. A., the plaintiff's agreement with the plaintiff that if the pledgee
sold or sold the land disputes with buildings to others. The contractor will
pay 3,000,000 baht to the plaintiff immediately transfer ownership. This means
selling or selling while Mrs. A. is still alive. The debt payment occurs when
the ownership transfer is registered. The agreement can not be interpreted as
meaning that Mrs. A made a will to sell the land to another person for disposal
or sale of the land dispute. For this reason, the text follows the agreement
that specified the transferee, whether he is a heir or a will. Any other person
must pay a full amount of Baht 3,000,000 to the plaintiff is a separate
agreement from the first. This means that the transferee, whether he is a heir
or a will, or any other person, is liable to pay the debt 3,000,0000 to the
plaintiff instead of Mrs. A. As a binding agreement to a third party who is not
the contract. To be liable to the parties, even if the third party does not
agree with it, it will not.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
406/2555.
Although the defendant is the
applicant for electricity and a name in the register of the electricity to the
plaintiff to pay electricity to the defendant at home dispute. But when the
land and house disputes are transferred, then it will be considered that the
transfer of ownership and the right to use electricity attached to the house to
the primary. And so must accept both the rights and obligations under the
contract. The defendant has the power of the plaintiff as the transferee of
electricity and the owner of the actual place. Even the defendant will not
terminate the use of electricity and transfer the power of electricity when the
detection of violations on the line. The defendant is not at home, disputing,
or sharing or benefiting from such action. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff and
the defendant is not obliged to pay electricity bills to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8972/2553.
Defendant 1, the plaintiff, a
commercial bank issued a letter of credit to the defendant to pay for goods
that the defendant purchased from overseas. When the product reaches Bangkok
Port. The plaintiff paid the goods to the bank overseas. And receive a bill of
lading for goods and items from the bank overseas as follows: The plaintiff as
a bearer of the car as a collateral to pay the debt under the letter of credit,
the defendant asked the plaintiff to pay. The car to replace the defendant to
the first car goods under the bill of lading as a guarantee of the letter of
credit issued by the defendant when the defendant. Rule that the defendant does
not pay, and not one false promises to obtain documents to go out shopping. And
then the plaintiff to sell the car to sell the debt to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
must bring the proceeds from the sale of cars to repay the letter of credit,
which is the reason for the delivery of the car by the sea. No right to take
the proceeds from the sale of goods to other debt or deducted from the debt of
the defendant 2 to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1401/2553.
The land contract dispute with
both plaintiffs and land disputes, the plaintiffs both held the same day. When
the trading is not registered with the competent authority, it is void under
Section 456 paragraph one, but the land does not have a letter of intent to
show ownership, so that only the possession of land when the land was delivered
to both plaintiffs. The intention to occupy the land dispute no longer. Both
plaintiffs have the right to possession under Section 1377, 1378, so it was
acquired by the lawsuit to force the defendant, the estate manager of the E,
handed over the certificate (Miss. 3) and registered the name of the defendant.
Both plaintiffs are holders of custody instead of the defendant as a manager of
the land transfer of the dispute to the plaintiff in accordance with the
contract. I can not And when both plaintiffs can not claim such rights to the
defendant as the estate manager of the estate, then there is no problem that the
plaintiff's case is terminated 1 year under Section 1754, paragraph three, but
the plaintiffs have the right to occupy the land disputes. Then I would like to
ask the defendant to disrupt the possession of land disputes.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2671/2550.
Even in accordance with the
verdict in the defendant sued the plaintiff sued the plaintiff that the lease
agreement will require the plaintiff to execute the debt. The plaintiff must
deliver the car to the defendant before the defendant. If not returned, the
price will apply. There are many things to do to pay off the debt is that many
plaintiffs will be selected. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 198. However,
the plaintiff to pay the amount of the plaintiff's debt must be used instead of
in the case can not deliver the car to be repaid, as well as the court to the
defendant. Then the defendant did not dispute the objection. The defendant has
waived the right to enforce the debt in the first order. The defendant is
obliged to register the transfer of the right to lease cars and deliver the
vehicle registration manual to the plaintiff. The defendant did not go to the
proceedings, it is a dispute of the plaintiff's rights. Code of Civil Procedure
Section 55, the plaintiff has the power to sue the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
583/2548.
The debt of the defendant in
this case is foreign currency debt. The currency of the Federal Republic of
Germany. The European Union is established. There may be changes in the
currency used in such country. The method of calculating the value of money for
convenience of enforcement. If in real time, the German currency is a currency
that is not used. The defendants pay their debts in German currency, which is
equal to the value of the German Mark. With interest above Interest is
calculated on the day before the date of calculation of the amount of the
German currency as the currency used. By calculating the amount of principal
and interest denominated in German currency as the currency of the exchange,
the exchange rate on the last day with the exchange rate of German currency in
exchange for currency exchange. During or before the time spent using real
money and the interest of the money that changed the currency used to replace
the German Mark since the change of money. Whether the plaintiff until payment
is complete.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2891/2548.
Under the terms of the
mortgage agreement. If the defendant does not manage the fire, mortgage and the
plaintiff has managed the insurance itself. Defendant agrees to pay the
premiums paid by the plaintiff to pay to complete. If the plaintiff has not
paid fire insurance premium instead of the defendant. The defendant has no debt
to pay fire insurance premium to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant
to pay fire insurance premiums from May 3, 2005 onwards every three years, so
the defendant sued the debt in the future has not occurred, and while the
defendant has no debt. Will be liable to the Court of First Instance to defend
the defendant in this part is not like. The problem is even though no party
appeals. It is a law of public order. The Supreme Court has the power to raise,
correct and correct the plaintiff to win the case less than the plaintiff as
the appeal. Code of Civil Procedure Code Section 142 (5), Article 246
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2165/2548.
The defendant pledged a loan
agreement dated January 13, 1992. The plaintiff's announcement on the interest
rate has come into force since June 16, 2535, so it is not applicable at the
time of the loan agreement. If no evidence of any claim to the plaintiff in the
interest of more than 15 percent per year, although the plaintiff is a
commercial bank does not fall under the jurisdiction. Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 654, but the interest of the plaintiff must be subject to the
provisions of. Commercial Banks Act Section 14, which requires commercial banks
to act on interest and discounts. The plaintiff determined the interest rate in
the loan agreement without appearing to the plaintiff's notice on the matter.
It is a violation of the law. Interest rate terms of 19% per annum in the loan
agreement is void.
The defendant has paid and the
plaintiff to deduct interest before the rest, so the money listed in the
account. When the plaintiff is not entitled to interest because of the nullity.
The plaintiff can not take the money paid to the defendant to deduct interest.
The amount paid by the defendant must be deducted from the money. And not to
pay unlawful interest that the defendant is not entitled to restore.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1664/2548.
Defendant 1 is the son of the
defendant, the second defendant, the old one and the defendant made a pledge to
hire a plaintiff to build a commercial building on the land, which is owned by
the defendant, the second defendant is the applicant for the construction of
commercial buildings. To the municipality When the construction is completed,
the managing partner of the plaintiff's department agreed to buy a commercial
building from the defendant, the first two rooms, the defendant is the
signature of the seller in the contract to buy, sell or deposit. The defendant
claims that the debt in this case is not correct. Because of the need to deduct
deposits and fees before the stone if the defendant does not involve the
defendant that the first contract with the construction contract with the
plaintiff, then why would allow the deduction. It is not the debt that the
defendant will be liable to the fact that. Previously, the defendant contacted
the plaintiff for the construction of commercial buildings. Subsequent defendant
to allow the defendant to contract a commercial building with the plaintiff.
Case 1, the defendant is the default of the defendant is not a dummy. Because
of the parody. Unwilling to engage with outsiders for agent actions.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5020/2547.
Where the debt is denominated
in foreign currency. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 196 is the right of the
debtor to choose whether to repay in foreign currency or Thai. The court has no
power to force or choose to replace debtors in debt settlement. When debts owed
to creditors in this case are funded by judgment in foreign currency. The
debtor can pay in Thai currency. The exchange rate at the place and time spent
on the money. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 196, which is the right of the
debtor to choose to repay the debt. The repayment of the creditors is not the
case of the court order of the debtor. Do not need Bankruptcy Act, BE 2483,
Section 98, which requires a debt in Thai currency. But the request to pay the
debt because the court ordered the rehabilitation of debtors. Required by
Section 90/26 of the Bankruptcy Act, which is a law relating to the business
rehabilitation, specifically provided that Section 90/26 of the third paragraph
does not provide Section 98 shall apply to the case under Section 90/31 that if
the debt has been determined. Foreign currency transactions are denominated in
Thai Baht according to the daily exchange rates of the Bank of Thailand on the
date the court orders the rehabilitation. In the event that the meeting of
creditors and foreign currency creditors attend the meeting for the purpose of
calculating the debt used to vote. The foreign currency is calculated in Thai
currency. In this case, there is no problem for the creditor. There is no need
for the court to order the authorities. The amount of debt must be calculated
in US dollars.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4920/2547.
The plaintiff and the
defendant are the total ownership of the land. Each person has the right to use
the land. However, it must not be contrary to the rights of other owners and
the total owner of such land may be sold. The defendant, who is keeping the
title deed to the land title to other people as a guarantee of debt. Cause of
the plaintiff can not register the sale of plots of land. It is against the
right of the plaintiff. Defendant is obliged to return the land title to
delivery to the plaintiff. If the debt is not the debt.
According to the provisions of
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 213, paragraph two, the court will order the
judgment on behalf of the debtor's intent only if the object of the debt to act
only one act. This case, the plaintiff sued the defendant handed over the title
deeds. The court can not order that the judgment on behalf of the defendant's
intent.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1584/2546.
The plaintiff sued for the
revocation of the land transfer law between the defendant, who is the estate
manager and the second defendant, in which case the object of the law to act.
So when the court ruled to revoke the registration of land transfer. The court
shall have the power to rule on the conditions of enforcement. If the two
defendants do not comply with the judgment on behalf of the intent of the two
defendants under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 213, as the Civil
Procedure Code, Section 276 provides.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6255/2545.
The Ministry of Finance
ordered the defendant to suspend the operation and the defendant prepared a
rehabilitation plan, but the rehabilitation plan of the defendant did not pass
the approval of the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority The defendant must
close the business permanently. Therefore, the condition that the plaintiff can
redeem the debentures before the maturity date in accordance with the provisions
in the Notification for Offering of Subordinated Debentures No. 1.6.2 Although
the rights and interests of the subordinated debenture holders will indicate
the case of liquidation to terminate. Company that the debtor will receive the
debt will be paid only when the ordinary creditor has been paid off. It does
not mean that the creditor's right to the debt of the debentures will not be
available until the creditor is completed. When the defendant closed the
business and was liquidated. With the power of debt, the plaintiff will have
the right to demand that the defendant settle the principal and interest under
the debentures to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5229/2544.
The Lawyer Act, BE 2528, and
the Notification of the Lawyers Council on Attorney Ethics BE 2529 (1986),
issued by the Law Society Council. The law prohibits a lawyer from entering
into a lawyer by means of a contract which divides the part of the disputed
property from the property. "Charge 20% of the attorney's fees. The lawyer
can pay for the case. Some law enforcement agencies charge a fee for lawyers.
And if the lawsuit is to be charged, the lawyer charges 10 percent of the
amount agreed. "So it is not against the law. The agreement that provides
the attorney fees is a percentage of the capital. And reduce the part if the
law only partially. Or have a compromise Set the criteria for calculating
attorney fees. It is against the peace or good morals of the people. The
contract is not void. And according to the contract, when there is no such
thing as gambling. It is not an agreement that looks at the future by the
uncertain future as a win. It is a contract of employment where the attorney
must pay the same to the client, so it is not gambling. Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 853
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7010/2543.
In the credit card manual.
Primary card holders can only credit their family members. By applying for a
supplementary card. In addition, the primary and supplementary card statement
will only be provided to the primary cardholder, as illustrated by the intent
of the parties that the primary cardholder is responsible for the use of the
cardholder's supplementary card. Same family When the defendant asked the
plaintiff to issue a supplementary card to the second defendant, the first
defendant husband, who is the main cardholder, must be jointly liable for the
debt of the supplement as a result of the use of his card.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3259/2543.
Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 386 is based on the termination of the contract in two cases is to
terminate the contract by the contract and termination of the contract by the
law, so even if the contract is set to terminate the contract in any case. If
there is a case that does not meet the contract, but in accordance with the
provisions of the law, then terminate the contract.
According to the conditions
attached to the purchase will be sold. "In the case where the seller is
unable to construct the condominium or apartment, the purchaser must complete
the transfer or transfer the ownership of the condominium to be purchased within
the time specified in this contract and the breach of the agreement shall
continue after the person Will send a notice to the seller to sell at least six
months. The buyer may terminate the obligation. The contractor is required to
purchase the contract. You can not register the transfer of ownership of the
apartment that the seller does not build the ceiling. The ceiling is valid
according to the contract. The contract is not terminated by the contract.
The plaintiff signed a
contract to buy condominiums from the defendant and pay the defendant a partial
contract on the contract. The rest will be paid on the transfer date. Under the
terms of the contract, the seller may use other materials and equipment
instead. Items of construction and materials and equipment used in the
construction of the purchaser's apartment only. And the contract is specified
in The ceiling item indicates that the general room is concrete, painted with a
central painted surface of aluminum, tbene bulb gypsum board, so the defendant
is not entitled to construction using other materials and equipment in the
central property. Moreover, the defendant did not make the ceiling. Defendant
is a contract violation. And this ceiling is a common property. Even the
plaintiff has not been a part owner of the property because it has not been
transferred property. But the plaintiff has the right to contract with the
defendant to buy and sell in order to force the defendant to comply with the
contract.
In accordance with the
provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 216 is the default of
default and the result of default, causing creditors not to benefit from the
repayment. In the case where a party fails to pay the debt, including the
repayment of the debt under the contract. Civil and Commercial Section 387 when
the plaintiff informed the defendant to pay the debt by building a ceiling that
is a fixed property within a period of one month, a reasonable period. But the
defendant was not properly constructed. The defendant did not pay the debt
within the specified period. The plaintiff has the right to terminate the
contract. When the case is terminated by the provisions of the law. No notice
required for a period of not less than 6 months as specified in the terms of
the contract.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2645/2543.
Defendant 1 hurts the victim
to force the victim to threaten to sign the loan agreement and the contract.
The defendant. 2 Speaking to the victim, I think cheating or do not come to
play with me while the defendant was snatching the collar of the victim. And
then the defendant stabbed at the left eyebrow, the injured until the injury.
And talk to the victim To sign the loan agreement. Otherwise, it will hurt
again. Hold that the defendant is a jointly with the defendant 1 injured the
victim and together rape the victim to sign the loan as a borrower. A loan
agreement gives rise to the right to a debt that has a debt object in lieu of
the lender. It is useful as a property to lenders. When the two defendants have
to borrow money from the rape by hurting the victim. To be signed as a borrower
from the second defendant, which is beneficial. The property is a joint
offense. And hurt the victim.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1713/2543.
When the debtor is in debt.
Creditors do not accept debt repayment to remove the debtor must be damaged.
The law allows the debtor to put property that is the object of debt for the
benefit of the creditor. And when the property is released from debt. The
debtor is not liable to the creditor further under the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 334 and 335 show that the debtor only has the right to withdraw
the property placed when the second defendant to pay money to pay the plaintiff
in another case and not exercise the right to withdraw. Creditors in other
cases will seize or attach the money that the second defendant placed to pay
off other debts, and when the legal freeze. I do not know if it is a freeze. So
I called the Enforcement Officer fee.
The petitioner claims that the
attachment is not liked and asked to withdraw the attachment. The lawsuit has
the request to release the suffering can not be calculated as the price.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
534/2541.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant agreed to transfer ownership and transfer ownership of land disputes.
But the defendant violated the contract to enforce the agreement. It is an
agreement to make use of livelihood is to use it. And the plaintiff asked the
defendant to jointly pay the price of the land dispute is a breach of contract.
When the transfer of ownership and transfer of ownership of land dispute, the
object of debt is the transfer of property. Agreement to enter or use the land
disputes. The debt is not a transfer of property. The only option is to use the
land dispute only. It is a different agreement or action differently. When the
transfer of ownership and transfer of ownership of land dispute is agreed, it
will be enforced, but only to benefit the land dispute is not the same. If
agreed to use in the land disputes, it will be forced to transfer the land
dispute is not the same. And the request to force the settlement of land
dispute is a replacement property. It is different from the obligation to pay
the mortgage redemption, which in the latter case is a refund of the already
paid. Even with the payment of the same amount of money, so the Court of First
Instance to hear the fact that the defendant agrees to the plaintiff has the
right to use the land disputes. Both defendants breach the contract and then
the two defendants jointly refund the redemption of mortgage land disputes to
the plaintiff. It is too judgmental or except in the case. Prohibited under the
Code of Civil Procedure, Section 142.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7091/2541.
Dispute settlement agreement.
In the event that the borrower ceases to be an employee of the lender for any
reason, and the borrower still has an overdue loan, the lender may choose to
consider the following as the overdue loan principal and interest. Unpaid
wages, bonuses, or other income that the borrower is entitled to receive from
the Company (lender) if such amounts are insufficient. The borrower will have
to find another money to close the outstanding balance of the loan. According
to the contract is a case where the defendant has money to be received from the
plaintiff. The plaintiff to deduct money that the defendant is entitled to from
the plaintiff out of the loan to offset the first, how much the defendant must
pay the plaintiff to the end. It is only conditional on the plaintiffs to
deduct any amount that the defendant is entitled to from the plaintiff to pay
the arrears owed to the plaintiff when the defendant acquitted of the
plaintiff's employees. The case is not about the power of the plaintiff.
When the defendant was
terminated by the plaintiff's employees, the defendant has borrowed money from
the plaintiff under the contract. And the defendant did not pay the loan to the
plaintiff. It is a dispute of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the power to sue
the defendant. The defendant has to fight the case. Defendants are entitled to
receive welfare benefits. The plaintiff must pay to the defendant when the
defendant is removed from the plaintiff's employees to offset the debt under
the loan agreement. The defendant claims that the defendant will receive
benefits from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a dispute. And the defendant did
not take the claim to the plaintiff by the counterclaim. The court can not
enforce it.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3508/2541.
When dealing with the
defendant's plaintiff to the buyer, the plaintiff's customers have to pay cash
only 100,000 baht, while the remaining 1,416,000 baht the buyer paid the check.
It is illegal to sell cars and regulations. Let the car according to the rules
laid down by the plaintiff. Which appeared later The plaintiff can not be
charged by the employer. Because the bank refused to pay. But the buyer has
brought checks. The new edition has changed twice. And the plaintiff can not.
The check is exchanged for the plaintiff to file a complaint to the inquiry
officer to prosecute the buyer. The plaintiff's behavior to the buyer is a
customer. The plaintiff accepted the benefits of the defendant's actions.
Employee and the defendant is not considered to be in breach of contract by the
plaintiff in the case that the plaintiff exercised its rights in bad faith
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 5, but not the case itself, the
ratification of the sale of cars. Defendant is not liable to the plaintiff in
the price of the defendant, the defendant to the plaintiff is not liable to the
plaintiff. This debt can not be separated. There are grounds for the Supreme
Court to judge the defendant did not appeal to receive the results as you
according to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 245 (1)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4384/2540.
The provisions on the
revocation of fraud under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237 does not
provide the right to the creditor who has the right to request only the court
to revoke. Creditors who have the right person in the right to request the
court to revoke any act that the debtor has done is known as a way to make the
creditors unfavorable and when the object of the debt is a house with land,
which is specific property. Other property can be transferred instead. The
debtor will have enough assets to repay the debt. It also makes the creditors
unfavorable to request a revocation.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9241/2539.
The purpose of debt is to buy
and sell the dispute is the transfer of ownership of the land by the amount of
space to buy for the plaintiff and the payment of land in accordance with the
amount agreed for the defendant. When the facts appear from the due date of
transfer under the promise of land expropriation. And the land to buy will be
sold in the expropriation area, which will cause the land to be sold to be
expropriated in whole or in part. Therefore, the repayment of the contract will
cause problems in terms of land plots. Receive as intended. And the amount of
land that the defendant intended. The change will not be in accordance with the
purpose of the agreement to buy and sell. Case that the settlement of the
contract to buy and sell the dispute in this case becomes impossible because of
any one will not be punished by any one party under the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 372 different parties do not have to repay. Continue to the next.
The case can not claim compensation from the defendant. And the defendant must
return the deposit to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5888/2539.
The plaintiff's plaintiff's
request for the defendant to make several repayments at a later date,
respectively. When can not do first, then do the latter. When the first payment
is not impossible, the three defendants and the defendant to jointly pay off
the debt, which is quite a debt. I do not like the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 202.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5885/2539.
The two plaintiff sued the
defendant to enforce the transfer of land to the plaintiffs, if the two can not
be transferred to compensate for the price of property dispute while filing the
indictment, damages and the price of land. Both the plaintiff's testimony.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3110/2539.
Buying property in the market
means buying property from a shop located in the market. It is not the shop
that is located in the market, buying the property from the person who sells it
to the store. The defendant set up a shop in the market to buy the lottery of
the plaintiff was stolen from the sellers. The defendant did not buy the
lottery in the market. The defendant must return the lottery to the plaintiff. The
debt to return the lottery to the plaintiff is not enforcing the act. Judgment
shall be deemed a judgment of the court instead of the intent of the defendant
in case the defendant refused to return the lottery to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9188/2538.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant to lease the building to the obligations of the contract between the
defendant and the defendant. Which is the defendant's permission to build the
building, T. is the issuer of expenses and rights. I would like to receive the
construction assistance from the applicant. The defendant will contract and
register. The lease is for 25 years, not a suit for delivery. The leased
property, which is the object of debt under the lease, because such right is
and will be enforceable only when the lease has been effective. The plaintiff
is not in force under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 549, Section 474,
the plaintiff did not use in the dispute as the lease contract because the
defendant has locked the key. And the defendant refused to enter into a
contract and registered the lease to the plaintiff in accordance with
obligations from the first. The defendant is obliged to make a contract for the
tenant. The lease term is 25 years with the registration of the lease. As long
as the lease is not made. The duration of the lease can not be started. The
court sentenced the defendant to register the lease. The plaintiff is 25 years
from the date of registration.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3185/2537.
After the plaintiff and the
defendant entered into a contract to sell the land dispute only 7 days, the
defendant husband and the defendant jointly set up the defendant company
jointly by the defendant husband defendant. And son as director The defendant
is not a defendant in the contract to buy and sell the land dispute under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 821, because then the defendant is not a
juristic person can not be any representative. Contract to buy and sell land
disputes. Both the defendant, the defendant, and the defendant witnessed the
two contracts, the object of the debt and the purpose of the debt is the same.
Is the transfer of land disputes in price and the same schedule. When the land
contract is disputed. The way is provided under the terms of the agreement to
buy and sell land disputes for up to 2 years, even under the land dispute, the
defendant is a buyer not a defendant. And no open deal. The circumstances
indicate that the defendant entered into a contract for the benefit of the
defendant. And equal to the agreement of the defendant jointly accept and
accept the agreement on the opening of a contract to buy and sell land dispute
is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant together. Agreement to
open a contract to buy land to sell disputes. It looks like a property. If not
registered with the competent officer is not full property rights under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1299, but it is applicable between the
parties, including the plaintiff and the defendant as a person rights.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2209/2537.
The court forced the defendant
to deliver the land title to the plaintiff. It is not compulsory to seize
property of the defendant to sell or sell the property of the defendant by
other means. But in the defendant's case, it appears that the plaintiff's plaintiff
sued the plaintiff is asking the plaintiff to repay the debt object is
different. Can not offset the debt. The case is not subject to the provisions
of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 293 first paragraph, the defendant has no
right to request the court to stop the execution.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
39/2537.
Even if the word is not a
promise to buy. However, there is a clear statement of the agreement of the
parties to trade the land, clearly identify the property as the object of the
debt. The price to be auctioned until the method and the time to complete the
debt settlement. The result is a contract to buy the full defendant, the
defendant is a juristic person by a second defendant is a competent authority,
one of the defendants is a representative of the defendant. 1 by law without
the need for a power of attorney. The contract of sale is the agreement of the
parties. It has a full legal effect. When the first defendant has responded to
the parties, the intent is bound by the result.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
506/2535.
A hire purchase agreement is a
contract that contains a lease and pledges to sell the property. When a
disputed automobile object is leased under a hire purchase contract. It will
result in the defendant, who is a hire purchase does not benefit in the car
dispute. The plaintiff, who is a hire purchase, may not be sold or disputed car
is entitled to the defendant, the plaintiff has a contract to suspend the
lease. The plaintiff has the right to deduct the lease. And back to occupy the
property for hire. But there is no right to call pending leasing. Agreed in the
lease. If the property was stolen, the robber lost. Hire-purchase agreement and
pay the entire contract until the defendant is liable for the plaintiff to be
liable for the damage caused by the car was lost during the possession of the
defendant, the plaintiff can not. Back into possession And it is considered a
penalty, by taking the overdue debt to the amount of damages. The court will
determine the plaintiff as to the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6006/2534.
The defendant will have the
right to ask the court to stop the enforcement of the case must appear that the
defendant plaintiff sued the plaintiff is another case in the same court debt
that could be offset against the debt under the judgment. In the case that the
defendant asked not to enforce the case. When it appears that the defendant
plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued the plaintiff to pay a debt to the defendant.
The debt that the court sentenced the defendant to pay the plaintiff in this
case is to divide the property. The object of debt in the case is not the same
as the debt in this case. Debt according to the judgment in the case where the
defendant sued the plaintiff can not be offset against the debt of this case of
the plaintiff. There is no reason for the defendant to request the court to stop
the case. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 293
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2387/2534.
The plaintiff sued the
plaintiff's plaintiff's misappropriation of 400 sacks, which were deposited at
the defendant's barn. By the amount of the defendant to pay the plaintiff.
However, the plaintiff's testimony can not be heard that the counting or the
selection of paddy to deliver to the plaintiff. The paddy claimed by the
plaintiff is not the object of debt to be paid to each other. And the ownership
of paddy is not transferred to the plaintiff. It can not be heard that the
defendant took possession of the plaintiff's paddy. May not be misleading.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
315/2534.
Dispute dispute that the
plaintiff purchased from the defendant as a defendant 2 and the defendant No. 2
did not defend the defendant as a representative, so the defendant has no legal
relationship with any dispute with the plaintiff. The transfer of car registration
on property, which is the object of the debt is not in the power of the
defendant to follow the contract with the plaintiff to continue. Condition of
the debt is not open to the plaintiff sued to force the defendant to register
the transfer of the dispute is the name of the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5785/2533.
The debtor took the land of
the creditor, put the name of the debtor instead of the mortgage and get a
redemption of the mortgage and transfer it back to the creditor within 1 year,
but not redeemed and returned as certified. The debtor was ordered by the court
to strictly enforce the debt that the creditor created before the date the
court ordered the absolute custody will hold that the right of creditors to
redeem the mortgage itself is already there. The date the court issued a
warrant for the mortgage debt to be called from the debtor 1, then occurred
before the court date. But the creditor has not yet redeemed the mortgage, if
the creditor has already redeemed the mortgage. It would call the debtor to
repay the mortgage when it was, but by the time the payment is due, the
creditors have not redeemed the mortgage and it is unlikely that creditors will
use the right to redeem the mortgage at any time. Creditors have no right to
call for redemption immediately. However, it can be considered that debt
repayment of this mortgage is owed. Conditions and conditions are not
successful. Creditors will be able to repay the debt under the Bankruptcy Act
BE 2483. Section 94 debt to be obtained in a bankruptcy case must be debt only
if the interest is included, the interest is up to the date the court ordered.
Only The creditors request to pay the debt by requesting the land transfer
official to transfer land ownership is a request that the land is the object of
debt. It's not even money owed. Or use the land price. It is only a request for
a mandatory reserve in the event that it can not be transferred to the
creditors, so there is no right to do so. Creditors prefer to file a petition to
the Official Receiver to take action to enforce their rights is another matter
separately.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
607/2532.
Court of First Instance to
expel the defendant with the defendant out of the land and sued the defendant.
Damages to the plaintiff. And at the request of the plaintiff, the defendant is
obliged to comply. Judgment Out of land and use Damages to the plaintiff. The
defendant sued the plaintiff is another case. The plaintiff and the seller of
the land to the defendant in accordance with the terms of the lease. If the
defendant wins the case, the defendant is only entitled to force the plaintiff
to sell the land to the defendant. Both cases have the same debt as the
difference between the conditions can not be offset. There are no grounds for
the court to order the suspension of the enforcement of the case under the
Civil Procedure Code. Section 293. The request to abstain from enforcing the
case under Civil Procedure Code Section 293 or not, the law requires the court
to. However, under Section 21 (4), the court has the power to make inquiries.
If the case is not the case, the court will order the court to stop the
execution of the lawsuit so that the court will not investigate.
