Section 420 Whoever
intentionally or negligently Illegal acts to him or her to death. The body is
good health, freedom, property or any right. He that violates the law requires
compensation for that.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1191/2560.
On February 11, 2010, the
plaintiff was notified of the cause and went to see the sign of construction
project named plaintiff as the project architect. February 19, 2010 Plaintiff
investigated the facts at Bang Phlat office. Know that the defendant filed a
second permit for the construction of documents with a false signature of the
plaintiff, claiming that the third and fourth defendants are the construction.
The plaintiff knows the defendant's third and fourth will use the claim on
February 19, 2010 plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued on February 10, 2011 claims
on the plaintiff's indictment does not terminate.
Defendant 4 knew that the
plaintiff did not receive a designer, but the intention was to bring the name
of the plaintiff into the billboard to the construction site that the plaintiff
is an architect. The action of the fourth defendant and the third defendant as
a director of the offending cause is to cause damage to the plaintiff. The
action of the third and fourth defendants are violating the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
563/2560.
The plaintiff sued the
plaintiff to defend the interests of the plaintiff and members of the
management of the twenty-third defendant to cause damage to the plaintiff. The
defendant raised the issue that the election of the current committee does not
comply with the rules of the plaintiff to cut the power to prosecute the
plaintiff not to prosecute. The defendant would like to ask the cooperative
registrar or deputy cooperative registrar to veto or revoke under the Cooperative
Act, 1999, Section 20 request the Registrar to order the Board of Directors to
complete the vacancy. To set up a temporary committee to act under Section 21
or request the cooperative registrar to interpret the regulations on quorum
under Section 58 under Section 45 of the Cooperative Act, It does not appear
that the Registrar has a ruling on the interpretation of the plaintiff's
plaintiff, as the defendant alleged that the election was disliked. The claim
of the defendant that the plaintiff has no power to sue can not listen. The
plaintiff has the power to sue the defendants twenty-three.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
228/2560.
Both plaintiffs sued the two
defendants for breach of the nine plaintiffs claiming that the two defendants
provided teachers who do not have the knowledge to teach in the course that the
nine plaintiffs cause the course was not evaluated. The Board of Higher
Education causes the nine plaintiffs to be damaged and claim damages. Both
defendants gave refusal. The nine plaintiffs have a burden to prove. But from
the plaintiff's nine detectives did not appear that the defendant deliberately
took the faculty who do not have the knowledge or negligence in recruiting
teaching staff, but how? By the defendant that the recruitment of teachers who
can transfer knowledge in the subject matter taught at a certain level. And
from the second defendant that the course of the defendant will be accredited
by the Board of Education or not at the discretion of the Board. Although not
consistent with the recruiting of teachers of the two defendants. It is not a
verdict that the two defendants are not responsible for the recruitment of
faculty to this course. In addition, according to the letter of the Higher
Education Commission to the defendant stated that the subcommittee should delay
the certification of education standards. The 1st defendant made improvements
as instructed by the subcommittee, inviting all nine plaintiffs and other
students who had been deprived of their degree. But the plaintiffs did not join
the nine. It appears that when the defendant has done so, the students have
been delayed the certification of education standards and has entered the
process of improvement, as suggested, received a certificate of education and
received a degree from the defendant. Then show that the two defendants have
recruited qualified teachers who are qualified by the Ministry of Education.
The evidence of the nine plaintiffs also can not hear that the two defendants
violated the plaintiff's nine suits.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10312/2559.
According to the Land Traffic
Act, BE 2522, Section 52 states that "in the way of the park. Do not allow
the driver to turn or turn right when another vehicle is parked or followed for
less than one hundred meters. The road has 3 traffic lanes and 3 separate
lanes. The road is in the middle of the road. The truck that the 1st defendant
has is 20 m. Very weighty The wet roads make it impossible to turn back the car
at a speed of 1 to be more cautious than a regular long-haul truck can only
turn when it is safe and does not obstruct the traffic of other vehicles. In
the way of the garden The 1st defendant drove right back into the car at the
scene of the accident by driving into the left side of the traffic lane at the
scene of the inbound road in Bangkok. Go out to the other side of the road to
get into the regular bus. The return of the car to the bus at the scene at the
usual return can not be made before the defendant to testify that the light in
the car at the scene in the distance of more than 200 m if it is. I believe
that the defendant can turn the car into a parallel passage, as soon as the car
that the defendant saw the light will come to the police. The scene of the car
wheels of the plaintiff's vehicle is 70 meters long. The brush starts from the
center of the bus when approaching the scene has left to the left of the bus to
believe that a brake. The car with enough force to make the wheels of the
plaintiff wheels slip slip and change the channel from the middle to the left.
It is believed that the defendant drove a car into the car at the scene of the
accident, while the car of the plaintiff sailed in less than 100 m as
prescribed by law. Without waiting for the plaintiff's car at the park to go
through the intersection before. This is a barrier to traffic of other cars and
is not safe. The turn of the defendant's car is so negligent that caused a car
accident in this case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9386/2559.
The correct name of the debtor
is in the report of the defendant's case 1 before the defendant 7 filed a
bankruptcy case. The defendant is a 7th lawyer should be careful and cautious
in the search of personal information from the government to lead to. Proof of
bankruptcy case, which is an important case. But it appears that the defendant
7 to seek the surname of the plaintiff. Not of the debtor Then use the
registration form for the people to apply for the Central Bankruptcy Court. The
case where the defendant 7 is not as prudent and cautious as the lawyer. It is
a negligence. When the defendant knew later that the 7th defendant sued the
defendant as a plaintiff. Instead of the defendant, the 7th plaintiff to
withdraw the plaintiff to nullify the results of the filing. Including other
procedures that are later filed. And the couple returned to their original
status as one did not file a complaint. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff to
complete the plaintiff, but the defendant 7 returned using the solution to the
lawsuit by requesting the name change, identification number and address, which
can not. And the result is not the same as the withdrawal of the indictment.
The action of the defendant in this section is considered to be illegal,
causing the plaintiff to be the Central Bankruptcy Court ordered absolute protection.
The action of the defendant 7 is a violation of the plaintiff, the defendant
will claim that the 7th offense of the court. To be free from liability.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8785/2559.
The plaintiff wishes to sue
the second defendant as the liquidator of the defendant committed a violation
of the plaintiff. When the second defendant acts as the plaintiff sued. The
action of the defendant 2 is to ignore the duty as a liquidator. Willfully
acting as a liquidator in violation of law. The plaintiff was harmed by the
violation of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to damage the plaintiff did
not receive the payment of the defendant's outstanding debt 1, but the
liability of the defendant as a defendant of the defendant. The first defendant
is liable for no more than the remaining cash that the defendant has on the day
of registration completed liquidation is 1,927,770.08 baht, and because the
defendant 2 Cool authorized to act on behalf of one defendant and the defendant
pleaded guilty to first pay the tax and penalty since before its dissolution.
When the official sent a notice of assessment of the value added tax to the
defendant on August 10, 2011. In the notice of assessment, the money to pay
within 30 days from the date of receipt of the second defendant as the payer.
The account of the defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 7.5
percent per annum of the principal amount of 1,927,770.08 baht from the date of
the payment of tax according to the notice of the settlement. From September
10, 2011 until the payment to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8467/2559.
Problem that the plaintiff has
no right to claim medical expenses amounting to 758,467 baht because the
plaintiff used the gold patent 30 baht for medical treatment. Without actually
paying or not being a power lawsuit issue. The public order, although the
defendants 2 and 3 will not provide. It will raise the appeal petition. In this
issue, the Supreme Court considers that. Even the plaintiff will not pay the
medical expenses of the hospital. Due to the use of the 30 baht gold patent in
accordance with the National Health Security Act BE 2545, all persons are
entitled to free medical treatment from public health facilities. Rights of the
plaintiff as required by law. Not related to the liability of the defendant,
the first offender, the defendant 2 and 3 are liable. The plaintiff has the
right to claim medical expenses.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8293/2559.
Use public roads as parking.
If there are no other legal prohibitions. Landowners with buildings adjacent to
public roads. It can be used as a public parking lot. But it must take into
account the public interest primarily. Must leave the car for the first. Owners
of both buildings on the street, including the general public, will be entitled
to use the rest of the parking lot on the basis of equality. I do not have to
think about who is the right to park before. In addition, the Ministerial
Regulations shall extend the distance from the public road. The purpose is to
secure and facilitate traffic. The four defendants used the public road area,
which was only 4 meters wide, parked their cars in the form of a sleep
deprivation, the use of others, but should use a short line of 1 meter building
adjacent to the public road. Say your parking lot with it. But it is used as a
pot holder. It is not necessary to use the building for that purpose. It is an
act that surpasses its rights and takes into account its own interests.
Regardless of the right to use the public benefit of others who are together.
Cause the plaintiff suffered an overdue. The rest of the parking space can not
be used for parking. Heard that the actions of the four defendants. The right
to use, but to damage other people unlawful. Violation of the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 420 and Section 421 and the plaintiff is considered a
special damage. The plaintiff has the right to force the four defendants parked
in the shortage of the building of the ownership of the four defendants.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5236/2559.
Violation of the defendant,
the plaintiff's car was leased to the car can not be repaired to the original
condition. The plaintiff will be entitled to claim damages from the price of
the car leasing according to conditions and prices in the event. Can not be
called from the rental price as well as the down payment paid by the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15108/2558.
Section 25 of the Medical
Profession Act, BE2525, provides that persons who have been harmed due to
misconduct of medical practitioners of any medical practitioner. I have the
right to accuse the practitioner. By doing the matter to the Medical Council.
And the board has the right to blame the practitioner. Persons with reasonable
circumstances to investigate facts about the ethics of medical profession.
However, the law does not restrict the rights of the damaged persons who
exercise the rights under the law. Do not use the right to prosecute medical
practitioners who violate their conduct in any way. The plaintiff has the power
to sue the six defendants without the need to wait for the order of the Medical
Council.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12849/2558.
The owner of the shopping mall
is to arrange a parking lot for the shop and the customers of the shop to park
the car while visiting the shop that rents the space in the shopping mall and
gives it to the company. The manager provides all utilities, including indoor
and outdoor security, with the benefit of revenue from the storage. The two
defendant and the defendant company is a subsidiary of the same company and the
purpose of commercial business is to benefit from the use of the shopping
center together with the defendant. The service fee for the utilities. The
company entered into a security contract with the defendant to arrange security
staff. The security of the shopping center building is therefore useful for the
use of the shopping center building. The defendant, the owner of the shopping
center building, has the security guard of the defendant, who will keep the
security of the shopping center building. The shopping center understands that
the second defendant assigned the defendant to represent the security of the
child. Repeat The circumstances of the company with the defendant 2, which
together trade. It is considered that the company with the defendant 2 together
in the contract to hire a defendant to secure the shopping center. When the
plaintiff's insurance is lost due to the negligence of the employee of the
defendant, the two defendants must be liable to pay compensation to the
plaintiff's insurer.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
11044/2558.
The couple will get that. The
contract between the company and the defendant is leased by the message
specified in the copy of the request for rent and lease receipt. But the driver
of the crane in the accident was an employee of the defendant company to
control the crane to lift the machine. The staff of the company is the only one
who determines the location of the machine. A. No authority to determine how to
use equipment or mold. The defendant is a supplier of cranes. The contract
between the company and the defendant is a contract of employment under Section
587 because it focuses on the success of the work is important. A lease
agreement under Section 537 of the defendant, including employees of the
defendant did not take care to check the cranes crane in the scene before being
used to do the job. Cause the machine to swipe down, hit the ground was
damaged. As a consequence of the negligence of the defendant and the driver of
the defendant company. The defendant is liable to indemnify the company.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10955/2558.
According to the Veterans
Administration Act BE 2510, Section 25 requires the Director of Veterans Assistance
Organization to administer the business and in accordance with Section 26 in
the business relating to third parties. The director acts on behalf of the
Veterans Administration and acts as agent. Can empower agents or individuals to
perform specific business instead. The defendants both opened a deposit account
to the plaintiff's employees, who are clerks in the financial unit by applying
for a savings account. Issued by Colonel Prof. without the fact that Colonel
Prof. is the representative of the plaintiff's director or not, the case is not
in compliance. The Veterans Administration Organization, BE 2510 (1967), issued
a copy of the ID card of the government employee, Colonel Prof. Fake. And a
sample of the signature card to the employees of the two defendants to check
their signature. Both defendants check the opening of savings account and
documents and then open a savings account using the account name. The "War
Veterans Organization". The defendant did not ask the plaintiff to open an
account or not. The four payers did not sign the sample of the signatures in
front of the employees of the two defendants are considered defective of the
two defendants. The negligence in the process of opening the account of the two
defendants, but the employee of the plaintiff's office brought documents to
open the account to the two defendants with the employees of the two defendants
fail to check the good. Before Before opening an account to the road, the act
of deliberately infringing on the plaintiff is considered a more serious act
than the action of the two defendants, which is only negligent action.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9797/2558.
Declaration of Land Reform for
Agricultural Land The Agricultural Land Reform Act, 1975. Section 26. Even
though the Office of Agricultural Land Reform has authorized the land to be
used for land reform for agriculture. It is not a legal termination of a land
whose ownership or right of possession is lawful. Agricultural land reform Act
1975 applies even though the land reform for agricultural land area dispute.
However, when the defendant claims that the defendant's certificate of 1 issued
by law. The defendants of the defendant is the Agricultural Land Reform Office,
which owns land in the agricultural land reform area. Plaintiffs No. 1 and No.
2 are only allowed to possession of benefits. No power to sue for the
revocation of the certificate (Miss. 3) of the defendant and the first
defendant has the right to land dispute. So I can not hear that there is a
violation.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9489/2558.
The plaintiff sued. Defendant
negligently driving a truck hit the bus end. The bus occupied by the plaintiff
and used to be damaged. Violation against the plaintiff. The defendant must use
the compensation for that. And claim damages as a lawsuit. A. The plaintiff
must pay for repairs to the repair account amount. The plaintiff sued the
plaintiff sued by the plaintiff. A plaintiff does not sue the defendant liable
for repair costs directly. Only the plaintiff called this damages based on the
appraisal. If the car is repaired, then there is a list and the price of this
assessment, so even if the bus is rented by the lessor selling the car without
repair or not. Or the plaintiff know the fact. The lease is not the car that
has not been repaired or not important, because the plaintiff did not file a
direct repair charge. But the lawsuit against the defendant violated the bus
occupied by the plaintiff and used to be damaged. The plaintiff has the power
to sue the lawsuit. A.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7383/2558.
A. class teacher of the
plaintiff The defendant's school officials were negligent in taking care of the
plaintiff's safety by neglecting to bring the plaintiff to the doctor to treat
the eyes. After knowing that the plaintiff was a boy, using a rubber film to
shoot a pencil stick left eye. The actions of the defendants are believed to
contribute to the left eye of the plaintiff's infection by the ophthalmologist
witnessed the plaintiff's testimony. If the eyes of the plaintiff's left
uninfected, it may not be the loss of vision. When the plaintiff has heard
that. The plaintiff lost sight later in the medical certificate. The defendant
did not refute the evidence of the plaintiff in this article to see otherwise,
the defendant is liable for the negligence of the defendant's defendant in
accordance with this. Act of infringement liability of officials, BE 2539,
Section 5 of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6101/2558.
The plaintiff sued the
plaintiff by claiming that the principal of the charge. The defendant brought
them and the intruder into the hotel of the plaintiff. Breaking down the lock
on the employee's office door and ordering the plaintiff's employees to open
the room so that the defendant's attendants stay for food and drinks and
refuses to pay. Both have threatened to take money from the plaintiff's
employees and show that the defendant is the owner of the business. Cause the
plaintiff was damaged. Ask the defendant to pay for the room. The food and
money that the defendant took from the plaintiff's employees. According to the
main complaint of the charge in the plaintiff's indictment said. The plaintiff
wishes to sue the defendant for liability in violation of the plaintiff as the
owner and the occupier of the hotel. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued the
defendant liability as a shareholder of the plaintiff to consider the facts of
the Supreme Court in the original case. Defendant is the shareholder of the
plaintiff, the Supreme Court ruled to return the shares of the defendant. The
power of the prosecutor to be a stakeholder in the hotel business or a
shareholder in the majority of votes. Or the plaintiff's authorized director,
the defendant in any way. The Supreme Court ruled in the case to return the
shares to the defendant. The fact that the defendant's name was registered in
the shareholder register does not appear. When the plaintiff's suit was filed
by the plaintiff's attorney. According to the plaintiff does not wish the
defendant to be liable for the plaintiff. Or about the management of the
plaintiff's business as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court as the
defendant's claim as stated. But the plaintiff sued the defendant to enforce
the liability of the plaintiff as the owner and owner of the hotel claimed that
the defendant with the plaintiff's actions against the law. Cause the plaintiff
was damaged. The plaintiff is the defendant and the right to sue the defendant.
Although the defendant will
win the case and the creditor in the case in which the defendant is the
plaintiff sued the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with the Supreme
Court. But the defendant has the right, according to the judgment. I like to go
to the court to enforce the case or to prosecute the plaintiff against the
other. The defendant took them and the intruder broke into the plaintiff's
hotel arbitrarily. It is illegal for the plaintiff. The plaintiff damaged the
violation of the plaintiff under Section 420
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4893/2558.
Both defendants will be the
media. Freedom of expression, speech, writing, printing, advertising, or other
means of expression, but may seek to do anything that constitutes or impairs
the rights of others. The two defendants brought a couple of sex stories to the
couple, which other newspapers had previously portrayed and reported. I do not
know who the woman in the picture is reproduced by the body of the news. The
man in the picture is having sex with the lover girl is the plaintiff. It can
be considered as an action that is excessive or affect the right to privacy of
the plaintiff. It is a violation of the plaintiff under Section 420 of the
plaintiff, the victim must be named. The nature of the offense and the
circumstances surrounding the investigating officer is that the injured person
must act in the complaint. Will the plaintiff consent to disclose the name and
events that occur to the public? Even the plaintiff is a politician. Be a
public figure But it has the right of privacy. Not as a politician or a public
figure, all of the rights to privacy are lost. The actions of the two
defendants violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff under Section 420, but
not a statement or a widespread message that violates the facts under Section
423, the plaintiff can not summon the defendant. Two liability for damage to
reputation or honor and damage to his or her way or other prosperity under
Section 423 by the two defendants must receive. In the damage. And even if
there is another person to commit a violation, it is between the plaintiff and
the offender, not the law that the two defendants will raise the claim to the
court to reduce the damages that they are responsible for.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4097/2558.
The plaintiff claimed in the
complaint that the defendants 1 to 5 vote in the solicitation. Which is not
true to the truth. The plaintiff argued that the resolution of the meeting did
not like. The plaintiff, as a member of the Association, is entitled to request
the court to revoke the resolution of the meeting at that time. Within one
month from the date of the resolution of the General Meeting of the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 100. When the plaintiff filed a petition to the court
to issue a revocation of the resolution of the meeting for more than one month.
The resolution of the meeting is no longer valid. And the five defendants
attended and voted in the meeting, so it does not violate the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3568/2558.
The contract for the security
services between the employer and the group of contractors with the defendant
as a representative of Clause 9.1 specified that the defendant is liable only
if the employer is the property. It is the property that the employer is
responsible for the damage. But under the contract to hire a wheelchair luggage
between the employer and the company, the employer who insured the plaintiff.
The trolley is therefore not a property of the company or property that the
company is responsible for. The case does not meet the conditions for the
defendant to be liable.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3203/2558.
The Army is a government
agency. The Supreme Command Headquarters And the Supreme Commander is the
government. Under the Ministry of Defense under the Ministry of Defense, the
Ministry of Defense, BE 2503, Section 8, which applies while the plaintiff sued
this case. The Ministry of Defense has the power to regulate the affairs of the
Supreme Command. It is considered to be a military under the command of the
Supreme Command, which is a government agency of the defense of the defendant
when the Secretary of State, driving a truck accident on the orders of the
bosses negligence. Caught in the car with the plaintiff's insurance. Both the
Army and the Defense Ministry are legal entities. The plaintiff has the right
to sue the Army, which is a direct agency. And suing the Ministry of Defense,
which is the agency in high order with. The plaintiff sued the Ministry of
Defense to take compensation for damage to the Tenth Lieutenant, which is a
representative of the defendant who violates Section 76 paragraph one of the
plaintiff has the power to sue.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
8342/2552.
The plaintiff claims filed by
residents raised primarily of charges that The defendant is the liquidator of
the company are responsible for Wed notifications that company terminate its
registration of the plaintiff which Creditors of the company is known. Will be
submitted to the plaintiff to the defendant Demand debt as a liquidator.
However, defendant fails to notify the plaintiff to know about it. The actions
of the defendant willfully or negligently cause the plaintiff has been damaged
to the defendant liable for payment equal to the amount the plaintiff claims
from companies with interest Wed. The plea by the accused who live primarily in
the plaintiff's motion for the show. That the plaintiff intends to sue the
defendant liable for data breach. Find the right to sue as a settlement
liability under Section 1272.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
1902/2552.
Although the plaintiff's
motion for a lecture that In announcing the examination Bar Association 14th
annual session 2504, the defendants violated the national institutions of the
plaintiff by the defendant directors. Conspired in a fraudulent oral
examination with a rating scale is not biased by knowledge of the oral test
scores to the district a written test, which was ranked third as high as 85
points, but the plaintiff, a written test score. the highest scores to the
district written more than 19 points scored just 65 points oral exam which,
when combined with a written test and score. The plaintiff to fall in the
number two and results in the district have scored a number 1 cause the
plaintiff has been damaged and embarrassed. Is not known and has been widely
praised as the best party school in that period to force the defendant
requested the plaintiff to ask for forgiveness. And publish the results of the
examination that the plaintiff lose as a Ph.D. is not the number one district
by the defendant to post the plate fixed at the office of the defendant. And
edit the list of exam results in the document and, if the defendant fails to
comply with the plaintiff by the defendant who pays itself is a complaint that
the plaintiff can show that the condition of the accused and the plaintiff's
application for enforcement. Including claims based on the principle of full charges,
such as rules Civil Code Procedure Section 172, paragraph two, but despite the
fact that the plaintiff in the lawsuit to support the claim that the Board of
Defendants conspired together to abuse the plaintiff. If a true value. The
plaintiff should have to do it, it shall be entitled to bring the case to
litigation before the court within a reasonable time to the defendant and the
plaintiff party has an opportunity to explain the allusion to solve the
allegations. But the plaintiff did not find it. To release the long lapse of
time until the action for about 43 years until the people involved are missing
completely, then dying away. Moreover, the fact that the plaintiff raised out
ability. The success of the test to be assistant judges. Official duties and
that the plaintiff carried out through public life. As well as experts in
various fields after the Bar exam. To support the knowledge that the plaintiff
would not have outstanding oral test scores than district are all facts that
occurred after the oral examination is a long time. Almost all of plaintiff's
total working life. By the fact that it exists or occurs within close birthday.
This will cause the indicator or indicating knowledge of the plaintiff on the
day. No oral examination. The plaintiff to leave time to roll up to 43 years,
then dig out the success of official duties to be carried out almost always.
Life to support the complaint alleged that the oral examination by the accused
unlawful act such as this indicate that the plaintiff's exercise in bad faith
prohibited under the Civil and Commercial Code Article 5 The plaintiff sued the
defendant has no power.
Problem of the right to bring
a lawsuit in bad faith. Is a problem with the law concerning public order. The
Supreme Court has the power to raise own decision as Civil Code Procedure
Section 142 (5).
Judgement of the Supreme Court
4466/2551.
Civil complaint, the
plaintiffs do not have to lift up the laws cited in the complaint. Just the
facts and arguments claim that the defendant is liable is enough. Court shall
have the power to lift up to fine law to cases under consideration the fact
that the availability of Section 134 Civil Code Procedure When the plaintiff
sued the state agency and officials to liability for infringement. Must follow.
Tort Liability Act, BE 2536 court officials have the power to adapt the Act to
be the case.
Archery at the scene of the
drama, English Department, which accused the four acts to teach the students.
In addition to the four defendants will have to do to teach students knowledge
in the Thai language. Also considered the four defendants have been assigned to
students who have a child to be safe. To behave in the regulations of the
school. Not to cause a lot of trouble for any damages to others that accused
the four students to order school supplies to bow to the four defendants should
use caution when anticipated or foreseen that may cause harm to your body. If
they used to play on each shot and did not order the defendant to four students
to bow to the destroyed or stored in a safe place or prohibit the use of arrows
to play. Archery in the classroom because there are many cars, such as nature
of the teaching profession generally comply with the four defendants, but not
like performance and lack of diligence is negligence. 4 held that the defendant
has violated the plaintiff's cause damage to the body.
Defendant to four to teach
English to students grade 2 of the schools under the Department of General
Education, the defendant, 2 the performance official duties as a representative
of the defendant to two when the plaintiff one student who learned English
corruption. The second defendant to the body is liable to the plaintiff in
violation of the fourth defendant committed the Tort Liability Act 2539 authorities
first paragraph of Section 5.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
3557/2551.
The defendant made the ramp in
the land of the plaintiff because the defendant Servitude property require
trucks to park in the gas tank to store the security of the people who live
near the action which resulted in extra burdens Servitude property land under
the Civil and Commercial Section. 1388 the defendant has no right to do so. The
defendant can be made up of a temporary rather than a permanent plaster. The
defendant made the ramp into the land thus violated the plaintiffs.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
2296/2551.
Mesh fences protected the ball
out of the driving range upon the defendant as nylon, which looks light The
wind can blow through a traversable Upon the defendant without permission. To
build upon the strong or not. Well be a different story. If the renovation
without permission, but not strong, it could cause damage to any person has. Or
additions are allowed, but the action is not strong, it could cause damage. If
not that, then do not build upon the applicant to the street. Abuse to be
perpetrated by all
Judgement of the Supreme Court
1444/2551.
A plaintiff to sign and seal
of the Partnership that the plaintiff's Cheque payable to the bank 2 to Sat
Thor or even hold a check No transfer. But the true ownership of such check is
a check payee. The plaintiff, not two, a check made payable. Both the plaintiff
who is not a check. Is not the true owner of the check was for the Civil and
Commercial Code Section 1000 will have the power to sue the defendant bank
liable for payment by check. Both of the defendants charged a check from a bank
account to deposit Thor others to charge. It also held that the defendant had
not violated the plaintiffs in the two to make the plaintiff sued the defendant
both have the power to compensate for damages.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
374/2551.
Defendant to a contract with
the defendant hired two security areas within and outside the building
including the parking lot of the three defendants by requiring the security of
theft. And car care of a client or third person to come to the center to avoid
damage. In practice, defendants will provide a staff car park at the entrance
to wait for delivery parking ticket and write the registration number before
directed to be given a car to park. When the driver of the car to return
parking pass and pay the parking fee to employees who regularly complete
solution before driving through to the a. and that. Insured is the plaintiff's
car. insurance to park in the parking lot of the building. And get parking pass
from an employee of the defendant but did not write the number plate is marked
with leaders dispute over cars leaving the parking lot. The parking ticket and
proof of car ownership is still with that. Insured. Because the car of that.
Insured lost due to the negligence of employees of the defendant, one who does
not write the number plate marked on the card through the parking lot and did
not detect evidence carefully before allowing the truck out. away This does not
ignore its duties under the conditions specified on the back parking ticket.
Considered to be employees of the defendant to a negligence without caution in
the performance of the car that cause. Insured loss. Considered to be an employee
of the defendant violated the defendant's hiring official, so that a defendant
is liable for a plaintiff's damages to the insurer.
Conditions listed on the back
pass that parking lot. The issue is not a depository car company is not
responsible for any loss or damage to the vehicle for any specified term that
the defendant, one set for the defendant to a termination liability under the
condition that the defendant, a set up, but party single No effect of excluding
liability for violations, an employee of the defendant so that a defendant must
be with the second and third defendants liable for damages to the plaintiff as
a subcontractor rights.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
6406/2550.
The plaintiff's land is high
land. The land is the land of the defendant both low The plaintiff's natural
rain water drainage from the plaintiff's land through the land of the two
defendants to the river, so sensitivity is the case where the defendant is
required to accept both the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1339 and 1340,
paragraph one of the first paragraph is not that The plaintiff and the public
channel is used in the land of the two defendants for a long time how I find
the track became a public body or constituent not servitude. However, the two
defendants aircraft plowed soil removed channel rail dispute cause flooding
plaintiff's land. The plaintiff shall have the right to sue to force the two
defendants asked the dispute to a body as the original track drainage.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
6277/2550.
The plaintiff filed a claim
under the policy from the defendant if the plaintiff insured will be liable for
damage to property of M. and S., the third accident caused the plaintiff
violated the insured to drive the defendant grab M. and S. 's car crash has
been damaged, so the plaintiff has the right to take legal action claim on
behalf of the plaintiff by the defendant insurer under the Commercial Code,
Section 887 plaintiff may not use the compensation to m Sat outside and then or
not. Not important because it is not the case subrogation.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
5700/2550.
The plaintiff constructed
quarters in space in the rear of the plaintiff's land as a toilet and a kitchen
much closer to the building of the defendant. Bathroom and kitchen also features
a window and exhaust fan to the rear of the buildings. Polluted air from the
bathroom and kitchen ventilation has been to the building of the defendant. The
defendant disputed the wall to block the stench coming out of the bathroom and
toilet of the plaintiff. It is exercised in good faith. The plaintiff may lose
the ventilation of the bathroom and kitchen to the plaintiff other than the
owner of nearby buildings, including the defendant has suffered. Therefore does
not dispute that the construction of the wall causing the plaintiff suffered
nuisance. Not infringe on the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
5521/2550.
To consider building a house
party intrusion into the land of others in good faith or bad faith that We
shall see that the construction of the building know that there is a property
of others. If I knew then it means that construction in bad faith. But while
the construction of the land did not know there is someone to understand that
their land has a house down But the truth after it was deemed in good faith the
construction of intrusion.
Both defendants knew that the
defendant both building construction and fence intrusion into the plaintiff's
land, while construction began, but only partially. However, the two defendants
also deliberately until the construction was completed despite the plaintiff
has notice before. Accused in the two acts in bad faith. Violation of the
plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
5205/2550.
Day of the attacks is not much
rain and strong winds were not. The early rain fell over the dead along the
highway while driving vehicles along highways and cause of death, death is not
caused by force majeure. But because of the inherent defects of the defendant,
not knock the Department of Highways name or neglected these officials did not
order the defendant to stem decay rain with hollow conditions to prevent damage
to others. Which violates the defendant's actions. Defendant is liable to the
plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
5018/2550.
The third defendant is a
doctor and hospital officials Sat agency and the second defendant, a plaintiff
who has a sore pregnant I have received treatment at the Hospital Sor 3 is a
defendant physician treatment. by surgical delivery, but the fetus was dead,
the third defendant to use caution in the treatment of a plaintiff in the
ability of physicians and professionals. Accused of 3 does not constitute a
violation of both the plaintiff and the defendant to a second position in the
government that the three defendants are not liable under both the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
1013/2550.
Contract sales unit between
the seller and the plaintiff buyer says sales (units) with parking numbers from
538 to 540, 547 to 549 of the Building parking 5 vehicles to the plaintiff as
money 10,014,333 U.S. holds that the plaintiff has title. In units with parking
from now on the same contracts and the Commercial Code, Section 458, which the
plaintiff as owner of the property. Shall be entitled to various as provided in
Section 1336.
Parking in the condominium by
the state shall hold the other assets that are intended for use or for the
mutual benefit for the co-owners. It is the common property. Condominium Act BE
2522, Section 4, but when an agreement to sell units that plaintiff purchased
the property to indicate that sales (units) with parking Parking as set forth
shall become the property of the plaintiff with units and is not considered.
"Common property" of the condominium anymore, but is "property
of the person" of the plaintiff and defendant, a condominium is not the
rules or do anything about parking it in the future to be dead easy. The
plaintiff is the owner. Although plaintiff's unpaid common expenses exceeding 6
months, the defendant also like to admonish another separate case. When the
defendant to issue regulations prohibiting the plaintiff to the car park in the
parking contract for sale. Even the plaintiff to bring cars to park in a
different place. And to pay costs up unnecessarily. Considered as a functional property
rights hinder the plaintiff's agreement to sell units. Can be considered an
intentional act in violation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been damaged.
Defendant must pay damages to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
527/2550.
Automotive products under
excise tariff end. Excise Tariff Act 2527 as amended in accordance with Excise
Tariff Act (No. 3) Act 2534, Section 3 has already defined. The Excise
Department Excise Department to order the defendant to the car which is made of
437/2537 parts of a car seat designed for spontaneous Now, even with front
seats only for the driver and rear passenger open to the excise tariff category
with a 05:01 change of car pick up the meaning of car pickup. As passenger
cars. Not the interpretation of the Excise Tariff Act under Section 5 of the
Excise Tariff Act 2527 is not the power to perform their duties strictly within
the scope. Actions that constitute unlawful. The officers seized the
defendant's car to the plaintiff can not legitimate. Is a violation of the
plaintiff. Defendant must receive compensation in violation of the defendant's
officers have done in the performance of duties.
While the plaintiff was the
defendant's car to leave. The plaintiff would not be able to take advantage.
And the time that passed almost two years would leave the car park without
using the old down. Some equipment out of state or end user which is why cars
cost decreased. Which the damage caused by a violation of the defendant.
Defendant is liable to the lack of benefit from the plaintiff did not use the
car. And depreciation of the car to the plaintiff by
Judgement of the Supreme Court
7975/2549.
Trucks and rice on the
plaintiff's truck was seized in the middle of criminal proceedings by the third
defendant is competent. Is responsible for maintenance of medium trucks and
rice during the investigation must be careful of ordinary prudence should care,
as custodians of their own. Especially the sack of rice and 200 sacks hundreds
of thousands of U.S. truck on the car will be more careful not to get lost or
damaged. The defendant to three delivery truck parked in the fence of the
police station. Just bring a truck to park only. This property is not
maintained. Although it has kept the car keys. Then remove the chain and lock
the steering wheel with Clutch and check frequently. However, parking trucks on
the street without providing the treatment as appropriate would allow the
criminal theft of trucks and milled to easily defendant 3 was not used
carefully take care of trucks and rice, just like ordinary prudence should
care. maintain the property of their cause is lost to trucks and rice can be
considered as negligence of the defendant, 3.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
1797/2549.
Guarantees that the plaintiff
made it to the defendant (1) is identified as "Guarantor agree to
guarantee all those debts into a. Partnership bank debt prior to the date of
this contract. And or debt at the time of this contract, including debt and the
debtor will be indebted to the bank after the contract date now on ...
"guarantees that a form of contract that the defendant made ready to use.
guarantee all types. Write a message in style with a comprehensive contract
with debtor is liable in the past, present and future, which may not meet the
intent of the parties. When it appears that the plaintiff intended only
guarantee that can occur from the Partnership for a. to guarantee the defendant
filed a construction bid package, or guarantees of compliance with construction
contracts only. Are not intended to guarantee a. Limited liability otherwise
more of the defendants accused the plaintiff's deposit and loan repayment to
deduct overdraft debt of the Partnership is a. cause damage to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
8309/2548.
Operation of the two
defendants cause noise and interference foul smelly right to live in the
dwelling of the plaintiff, both generally happy. Both the plaintiff shall have
the right to action for the damage. Or nuisance to the end to suffering.
Including the two defendants to stop the actions that cause noise and smelly
foul or find a way to prevent noise and smelly foul violate the rights of both
plaintiffs.
When the Supreme Court
prohibited the defendant to two actions that cause noise and spray a smelly
foul trouble and annoyance to the second plaintiff. If the two defendants did
not follow the verdict of the court. Both the plaintiff would prefer to have
enforcement. Which would cause damage or nuisance suffered from noise and smell
the end to hold. Not infringe on the rights of the plaintiff again.
A factory of the two
defendants. Despite the violation of the Factory Act 2535 and should be
installed in an industrial estate as the plaintiff claims. It is the defendant
guilty of both states. Authority of the state, which is responsible for
monitoring and supervision will be responsible to comply with the law. Both the
plaintiff has no right to ask that the two defendants to move the plant
somewhere else.
Costs to prevent noise and
odor suppression, including the cost to install air conditioning in the home,
both the plaintiff. Cost of borrowing to build another home after And cost to
hire the guard house. Not caused by the common cause of the defendant violated
both But the damage is beyond reason. The two defendants are not liable.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
5628/2548.
Car plaintiff collided with
the car the defendant, 2 and 3, the defendant, one is the driver after the
accident the plaintiff and the defendant, an Agreement for damages that the
plaintiff claims the defendants to an indemnity in the vehicle of the
plaintiff. The repairs to be in the same condition in all respects. And the
defendants agreed to a compensation of the plaintiff's vehicle by the owner of
the company that l car accident as a passenger vehicle to the insured. The
plaintiffs do not mind. According to the memorandum of agreement also provided
that the plaintiff have to agree on damages that the defendant insurer Bus
drivers also do not have a clear responsibility in terms of insurance companies
towards the plaintiff and the damages amount. It is an agreement that is not
without dispute. Do not hold that an agreement between the plaintiff and the
defendant is a compromise agreement. This will make the data breach debt
extinguished.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
2345/2548.
The plaintiff, a state agency
to sue the defendant forced the authorities to pay compensation under the base
violated. The plaintiff sued to describe the fact that the defendant violated
the duty and negligence by claiming that the defendant has the duty to provide
documents and evidence in the proceedings. Intensive monitoring to gather
evidence to obtain documents and evidence, and is responsible for coordinating
with the prosecutor to submit additional documents and witnesses related to
fact check and certify the document. Neglected by the defendant to undertake
procurement and intensive monitoring to obtain documents and evidence sent to
the recipient operator to assess the proceedings. And cause the case to
terminate the plaintiff was damaged as the plaintiff's motion for the
translation enough that the plaintiff sued the defendant lecture performance
with gross negligence, then.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
2703/2546.
When there is reasonable cause
to believe that the defendant has been accused of patent infringement. The
defendant used the official complaint to the criminal proceedings to the
plaintiff. Obtain a protection order to enforce the patent that the defendant
has been located is exercised lawfully. The police will do what the plaintiff
to the discretion of the police. Accused is not the intent or negligence on the
plaintiff by making illegal or exercise. That would only damage to the
plaintiff which would violate the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420 and
Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
880/2546.
Plaintiff's signature on a
withdrawal slip is not the same specimen signature in the passbook and savings
account application explicitly, but only similar. Normally, if a consumer.
Employees of the defendant, a bank will not pay. But the pay, because the
defendant 2 to employees working in the office of the defendant, one with his
trusty relatively flexible and paid by no conscious attention to the sign of withdrawal
as a sign that true or not, especially in If the plaintiff is the recipient
sign a withdrawal slip, but not self-financing to the plaintiff. Employees of
the defendant at a still pay money to the defendant to two instead of the
circumstances clearly show that employees of the defendant to a gross
negligence in paying money to the defendant to two defendants a need to
co-defendants to 2 liability. plaintiff
Plaintiff deposit passbook to
the defendant to two because trust defendants 2, a nephew of the plaintiff and
manages the plaintiff deposits with the defendant, an even cover, back cover
has prompted depositors to keep the passbook. own. It is only a suggestion, not
an agreement to deposit the plaintiff did not receive the passbook and not the
instructions or warnings such. Because the two defendants as receivers and keep
the passbook from the start instead. The defendant. 2 withdrawals from deposit
account to the plaintiff. Is caused by the negligence of employees of the
defendant, one is not a direct result of the plaintiff's deposit passbook to
the defendant to 2 to hold is not that the plaintiff has the negligent actions
violated the defendant to two by the defendant. 1 must be associated with the
second defendant liable to plaintiff in full.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
876/2546.
In the case before I want to
dispute with him the land dispute is the land that the plaintiff entitled to
possession of the love or the land public, which may be revoked by the Land
Code the matter, but that the defendant used the people to a tractor to plow
push land dispute and the various fire tree planting until the plaintiff has
been damaged greatly, although claiming to act based on any rights under the
contract. The circumstances of the defendant is willfully or negligently causes
damage to the plaintiff's property rights and land disputes without authority
to do so by law, in violation of the plaintiff. The right to dispute the
plaintiff's property. When the plaintiff has been damaged the plaintiff sued
the defendant has the authority to be liable for damages to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
400/2546.
The plaintiff agreed to
acquire student desk with chair of the defendant. That the defendant delivered,
student desk with chair defect. If the defendant is guilty contracts. Not a
willful act or negligence by others is illegal to cause them damage. Accused
does not violate the plaintiffs under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
420.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
1840/2545.
Accused 2, as the liquidator
of the defendant that a will be liable to the plaintiff was a case the
defendant to two practical or not perform the liquidator intentionally or
negligently cause the plaintiff damages not to receive payment from the assets
of the defendant: 1. There does not appear to exist when the plaintiff also
seize and freeze assets, pay debts and that a defendant has other assets, so
even if the two defendants will perform a liquidator is not required under the
Commercial Code provisions, it does not hold. 2 that the defendant violated the
plaintiff accused the two can not be jointly liable for the defendant to one.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
51/2545.
Employment agreement between
the plaintiff and the defendant did not have the time to hire them. The
plaintiff and the defendant has the right to terminate the contract by notice
to the other party notice under paragraph one and Commercial Code, Section 582
LPA 2541 Section 17 paragraph two of the defendants. (employer) the right to
terminate an employment agreement is a legal right to use the like. Not a
breach of contract. And not an intentional or negligent to continue the
plaintiff (employee), by unlawful damage to the plaintiff by the defendant and
Commercial Code, Section 420 has not violated the plaintiffs.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
5736/2544.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant consignee that carrier liability. Because the defendant is
responsible under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 2534 and the contract of
carriage by sea will be brought to the carriage of goods delivered to the
plaintiff and the expropriation of lading. But the defendant did not deliver
goods to the plaintiff. Delivered to the buyer without the expropriation of
lading. Which non-compliance with the contract of carriage by sea. Although the
plaintiff's complaint to assert infringement by data. But when the defendant's
breach of contract of carriage by sea, and the plaintiff can claim for damages
arising out of a data breach. It can not be a one-year old Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 448 shall apply.
