Section 449 any person when the action is protected by a legitimate act according to good order lawful good. If you cause injury to others you find that the person was not liable for the claim.
The damage may be a cause for compensation from the need to protect individuals from unlawful or in violation of the command is optional.
Section 450 if the person doing damage or destruction of property is one thing to parry the danger that treatment with a public emergency. You did not need the compensation if the damage is not unreasonable danger
If a person, damage or destruction to property is one thing to be treated with a parry to the dangers of private emergency that requires the property back.
If a person, damage or destruction to property is one thing to protect their rights or a third party from danger by the emergency, because the property itself is a reason that people like this is liable for the claims not If damage is not unreasonable, but if danger arises because of the person's own fault. You must remember that the liability for compensation.
Section 451 is to protect the personal use of their rights. If the circumstances are asked to assist the court or creditor who does not promptly and, if not made immediately by the disaster is as it ought to be their right, it must defer to the more or disappearance was injured know that You find that the person was not liable for the claim.
The use of force in the preceding paragraph that You need to limit strenuous, but only that needed to be treated only parry danger.
If a person who acts in the paragraph beginning missing presumed lost because there is reason to need to do so by law, know that Him, he will be liable for the compensation to others, even the fall of the missing will not be because of their negligence.
Section 452 would like to retain property of another catch to the damage in real estate, and kept it as an insurance claim should be required for their circumstances and even if it is necessary to kill the animal waste it like that. possible.
But it must be notice to the owner of the animal without delay. If the owner of the animals and find no indication that the catch must be managed as appropriate for
Judgement of the Supreme Court 684/2538.
Villain had pierced the wall of the block plant theft defendant took goods from the factory to the workers. The defendant has to figure out how to prevent the danger before it reaches the wire to stretch. The wooden square is located at the ground to release the electrical wires on the scene. Brick walls block factory is drilling the same defendant, who died as a brick wall, drill block. Then duck into the factory to steal, but the defendant, who died four foot wood. Sided with electricity through the wire and was shot to death the defendant had assumed. Action is protected by a defendant shall be unlawful for amnesty shall not be liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 449 that a W c.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7362/2537.
Prisoners take hostage to cause misfortune to be tied in pairs, with prisoners walking out holding one grenade and threatened with said ball lift. Pretending to throw grenade into Division 2 for the defendant to them is only 4-5 m 2, which is accused of commanding the prison. Then ordered the officers to use firearms, shooting prisoners before such an order. The meeting agreed that the shooting at a meeting with the. Officer fired for each individual to prison is not a random shooting into a group that also brought misfortune Shows that the two defendants are to carefully use caution for the safety of the hostages at best. And must be ordered because the inmates suddenly pretending to lift grenade. Throw them to the defendant, 2 and the grenade explode and prisoners are hostages to death can be considered as force majeure. Accused 2, and they do not act in violation of the plaintiff. Corrections Act BE 2479 Section 17 (a) (3), 21 prison officers are not liable for the consequences of their actions either way. Civil or criminal actions, when in good faith and actions that follow. Conditions specified in Section 4, whether the victim is a prisoner or any other person. So even if the hostages died because of such action. The ten defendants will not be liable for compensation.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2372/2537.
The plaintiff and the defendant is a foreign trade operators movie together before the plaintiff has the rights to projector. Movie dispute that a defendant can introduce advertising disputes before the movie. Later, when the plaintiff has the movie rights disputes. Plaintiff similar ads in the daily newspaper that the plaintiff purchased a movie, spending a dispute to the defendant at a lose face hurt when the plaintiff began to cry film then went on to dispute the ad. Similar damage the reputation of a defendant is ever as is the case that the plaintiff had deliberately damage the reputation of a defendant to be detrimental to the defendant to publish a dialog to prevent damage should it occur directly And act in good faith to prevent damage to the defendant to an action in good faith, thus to prevent the wrong person under canal. Not infringe on the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5807/2533.
The Na Na defendant is located above the plaintiff. Of water will flow from the land through land drainage plaintiff defendant The defendant in the channel off the land to the defendant shall not flow into the soil damage. Rice seedlings in the field of preventing damage by the defendant is unlawful. Despite damage to the plaintiff. Defendant is not liable for the damages to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 768/2521.
Disputing the plaintiff's car. Brother plaintiff morning to drive contract hauling wood to the company accused the three by his brother the plaintiff has cash wages in advance from the defendant, 3, also hauling wood for inadequate amount requested advance to the later, the plaintiff must Used car disputes. So the plaintiff brought his brother to drive people away from the defendant disputed the third defendant, an employee of a company that controls the third defendant truck wood already know that the dispute is the plaintiff's car. Have to ask police to seize cars track with regard to the dispute, but only that Brother still owe the plaintiff the defendant that its liabilities are as follows: three acts of a defendant's actions illegal and cause damage to the plaintiff. Constitute a violation of the plaintiff. Liable for damages resulting from the action. When the defendant first employed as defendants 3 had violated the plaintiff while acting for the benefit of the defendant third defendant, 3 is liable for damages resulting from the violation of the defendant to a cause in the position. is a juristic person under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 76, if not required by the exception under Section 451 of the fourth defendant, a police car was following a dispute with the defendant and inform local police also seized a vehicle to dispute. When it appears that the action by order of the commander does not have a good faith. Personal liability.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3347/2516.
Horse ID of the plaintiff as to accounted for a horse female defendants at first the space under the house of the defendant, a horse defendant, a rebel and kick a horse the plaintiff which is why the property of the defendant at a loss by the defendant, one did not agree with can be considered. There is a danger to the emergency. The defendant and three co-used bat horse of the plaintiff by the defendant to a request from that perpetrated by the need to protect the rights of the defendant to 1, that the defendant should bat, just to catch a horse of the plaintiff out. District home of the defendant but the defendant shared a stick horse beaten to death, the plaintiff's injury. It is unreasonable. All three defendants liable for compensation to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 116/2513.
Building Construction plaintiff's land full of meat, the plaintiff. Country rock and then footpath on the footpath edge into the land of the defendant, which is adjacent The defendant agrees to assume the acquisition of rights over land. Which Property rights. When not writing and registered. Would lean Then, later told the defendant did not consent to the stone pavement, and advanced cars on the land of the defendant to the plaintiff had no right to use the land of the defendant, but the stone pavement, and cars. The acquisition of the land is not vested in the defendant.
When the defendant told the plaintiff to demolish the stone pavement, and cars away from the land of the defendant. The plaintiff refused to demolition. I like the defendant may not exercise judicial power to demolish arbitrarily Not eligible because of the provisions on amnesty If the demolition waste management itself. Violated the right of the plaintiff will be liable for compensation.
The Supreme Court 1617 - 1618/2500.
Defendant is Ayyawanhkorn of the temple. The plaintiff was told to demolish the building and tree planting lease aircraft to measure the temple will be excavated along the canal through. As agreed to hire him. The plaintiff acknowledges and how to deploy and manage not to come. Delay the measure until the contract hire and will dig out the defendant has the management of decommissioning. Building innovative and cutting trees outside the lease. Carefully tried to minimize the damage. To Canal then pile on the plaintiff such as this. Defendant is not guilty because of lost property lost property are not intended but Defendant liable for the violation to the plaintiff's property. Not exempt under Criminal Code Section 451 In addition to civil damages and ordinary damages, the court also thought by the civil process section 446 with another single one.
The damage may be a cause for compensation from the need to protect individuals from unlawful or in violation of the command is optional.
Section 450 if the person doing damage or destruction of property is one thing to parry the danger that treatment with a public emergency. You did not need the compensation if the damage is not unreasonable danger
If a person, damage or destruction to property is one thing to be treated with a parry to the dangers of private emergency that requires the property back.
If a person, damage or destruction to property is one thing to protect their rights or a third party from danger by the emergency, because the property itself is a reason that people like this is liable for the claims not If damage is not unreasonable, but if danger arises because of the person's own fault. You must remember that the liability for compensation.
Section 451 is to protect the personal use of their rights. If the circumstances are asked to assist the court or creditor who does not promptly and, if not made immediately by the disaster is as it ought to be their right, it must defer to the more or disappearance was injured know that You find that the person was not liable for the claim.
The use of force in the preceding paragraph that You need to limit strenuous, but only that needed to be treated only parry danger.
If a person who acts in the paragraph beginning missing presumed lost because there is reason to need to do so by law, know that Him, he will be liable for the compensation to others, even the fall of the missing will not be because of their negligence.
Section 452 would like to retain property of another catch to the damage in real estate, and kept it as an insurance claim should be required for their circumstances and even if it is necessary to kill the animal waste it like that. possible.
But it must be notice to the owner of the animal without delay. If the owner of the animals and find no indication that the catch must be managed as appropriate for
Judgement of the Supreme Court 684/2538.
Villain had pierced the wall of the block plant theft defendant took goods from the factory to the workers. The defendant has to figure out how to prevent the danger before it reaches the wire to stretch. The wooden square is located at the ground to release the electrical wires on the scene. Brick walls block factory is drilling the same defendant, who died as a brick wall, drill block. Then duck into the factory to steal, but the defendant, who died four foot wood. Sided with electricity through the wire and was shot to death the defendant had assumed. Action is protected by a defendant shall be unlawful for amnesty shall not be liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 449 that a W c.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7362/2537.
Prisoners take hostage to cause misfortune to be tied in pairs, with prisoners walking out holding one grenade and threatened with said ball lift. Pretending to throw grenade into Division 2 for the defendant to them is only 4-5 m 2, which is accused of commanding the prison. Then ordered the officers to use firearms, shooting prisoners before such an order. The meeting agreed that the shooting at a meeting with the. Officer fired for each individual to prison is not a random shooting into a group that also brought misfortune Shows that the two defendants are to carefully use caution for the safety of the hostages at best. And must be ordered because the inmates suddenly pretending to lift grenade. Throw them to the defendant, 2 and the grenade explode and prisoners are hostages to death can be considered as force majeure. Accused 2, and they do not act in violation of the plaintiff. Corrections Act BE 2479 Section 17 (a) (3), 21 prison officers are not liable for the consequences of their actions either way. Civil or criminal actions, when in good faith and actions that follow. Conditions specified in Section 4, whether the victim is a prisoner or any other person. So even if the hostages died because of such action. The ten defendants will not be liable for compensation.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2372/2537.
The plaintiff and the defendant is a foreign trade operators movie together before the plaintiff has the rights to projector. Movie dispute that a defendant can introduce advertising disputes before the movie. Later, when the plaintiff has the movie rights disputes. Plaintiff similar ads in the daily newspaper that the plaintiff purchased a movie, spending a dispute to the defendant at a lose face hurt when the plaintiff began to cry film then went on to dispute the ad. Similar damage the reputation of a defendant is ever as is the case that the plaintiff had deliberately damage the reputation of a defendant to be detrimental to the defendant to publish a dialog to prevent damage should it occur directly And act in good faith to prevent damage to the defendant to an action in good faith, thus to prevent the wrong person under canal. Not infringe on the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5807/2533.
The Na Na defendant is located above the plaintiff. Of water will flow from the land through land drainage plaintiff defendant The defendant in the channel off the land to the defendant shall not flow into the soil damage. Rice seedlings in the field of preventing damage by the defendant is unlawful. Despite damage to the plaintiff. Defendant is not liable for the damages to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 768/2521.
Disputing the plaintiff's car. Brother plaintiff morning to drive contract hauling wood to the company accused the three by his brother the plaintiff has cash wages in advance from the defendant, 3, also hauling wood for inadequate amount requested advance to the later, the plaintiff must Used car disputes. So the plaintiff brought his brother to drive people away from the defendant disputed the third defendant, an employee of a company that controls the third defendant truck wood already know that the dispute is the plaintiff's car. Have to ask police to seize cars track with regard to the dispute, but only that Brother still owe the plaintiff the defendant that its liabilities are as follows: three acts of a defendant's actions illegal and cause damage to the plaintiff. Constitute a violation of the plaintiff. Liable for damages resulting from the action. When the defendant first employed as defendants 3 had violated the plaintiff while acting for the benefit of the defendant third defendant, 3 is liable for damages resulting from the violation of the defendant to a cause in the position. is a juristic person under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 76, if not required by the exception under Section 451 of the fourth defendant, a police car was following a dispute with the defendant and inform local police also seized a vehicle to dispute. When it appears that the action by order of the commander does not have a good faith. Personal liability.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3347/2516.
Horse ID of the plaintiff as to accounted for a horse female defendants at first the space under the house of the defendant, a horse defendant, a rebel and kick a horse the plaintiff which is why the property of the defendant at a loss by the defendant, one did not agree with can be considered. There is a danger to the emergency. The defendant and three co-used bat horse of the plaintiff by the defendant to a request from that perpetrated by the need to protect the rights of the defendant to 1, that the defendant should bat, just to catch a horse of the plaintiff out. District home of the defendant but the defendant shared a stick horse beaten to death, the plaintiff's injury. It is unreasonable. All three defendants liable for compensation to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 116/2513.
Building Construction plaintiff's land full of meat, the plaintiff. Country rock and then footpath on the footpath edge into the land of the defendant, which is adjacent The defendant agrees to assume the acquisition of rights over land. Which Property rights. When not writing and registered. Would lean Then, later told the defendant did not consent to the stone pavement, and advanced cars on the land of the defendant to the plaintiff had no right to use the land of the defendant, but the stone pavement, and cars. The acquisition of the land is not vested in the defendant.
When the defendant told the plaintiff to demolish the stone pavement, and cars away from the land of the defendant. The plaintiff refused to demolition. I like the defendant may not exercise judicial power to demolish arbitrarily Not eligible because of the provisions on amnesty If the demolition waste management itself. Violated the right of the plaintiff will be liable for compensation.
The Supreme Court 1617 - 1618/2500.
Defendant is Ayyawanhkorn of the temple. The plaintiff was told to demolish the building and tree planting lease aircraft to measure the temple will be excavated along the canal through. As agreed to hire him. The plaintiff acknowledges and how to deploy and manage not to come. Delay the measure until the contract hire and will dig out the defendant has the management of decommissioning. Building innovative and cutting trees outside the lease. Carefully tried to minimize the damage. To Canal then pile on the plaintiff such as this. Defendant is not guilty because of lost property lost property are not intended but Defendant liable for the violation to the plaintiff's property. Not exempt under Criminal Code Section 451 In addition to civil damages and ordinary damages, the court also thought by the civil process section 446 with another single one.
