Contract effect , Termination , Deposit , fine

Section 369 of the Reciprocal Agreement. One party will not. Let's settle the debt until the other party settles the debt. This is not the case. If the debt of the other party. One is not yet due.

Section 370. If the reciprocal contract contains material intended to constitute To make or transfer property in specific property. And the property is lost. Damaged to any one to blame the debtor is not. The loss or damage that is folded to the creditors if not a specific property. You shall use the provisions referred to in paragraph This is the time when the property. Became the only property under the provisions of Article 195, paragraph 2.

Section 371. The provisions mentioned in the preceding paragraph. You must not apply if a recurring contract is conditional. And the property of the contract is lost or destroyed while the condition is still there. If the property is damaged for any reason, it will be punished. And when the conditions are fulfilled. Creditors will call for repayment by reducing the amount of debt that you will pay back or cancel it, depending on which option. But in the case of damage caused by the debtor, he was wounding the rights of creditors to claim.

Section 372 In addition to the cases mentioned in the second paragraph. First, if the repayment is impossible, because one of them will be punished. I do not have any. You will find that the debtor is entitled to repay the debt if the debt is not possible because of one of the creditor. The debtor is not entitled to repay the debt. But what is the debtor because of the debt. What is the reason for this? Or neglected Do not take anything that can be done. How much less Must be deducted from the amount that will be paid back. The same procedure applies to all cases where the repayment of one party remains unpaid. It is impossible. Because of one of the circumstances, the party is not responsible for the time when the other party defaulted, not repay the debt.

Section 373. The Agreement is made in advance as an exception. The debtor is liable for fraud. You are void of serious negligence.

Section 374 If a party contracts to pay debts. To the outsider. You have the right to a third party. In the case mentioned in the first paragraph. Third party rights It has occurred since the time it was intended for the debtor to take advantage of the contract.

Section 375 When the rights of third parties have arisen in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, then the parties may change or suspend the rights. Later did not

Section 376. Contracts which, as stated in Section 374, the debtor may raise up against the third party who will benefit from the contract.

Section 377 Upon entering into the contract. If anything is given as a deposit. You are deemed to be a deposit that is evidence that the contract has been made. The deposit is guaranteed to comply with the contract.

Section 378 of the Deposit if not otherwise agreed. You are going to say the following.

(1) to return or take a partial use of the debt.

(2) If the party making the deposit fails to pay the debt. The payment of debt is impossible because of one of the circumstances that the party is responsible for. If the contract is terminated because of the fault.

(3) Return if the party receiving the deposit fails to pay the debt. This is not possible due to one of the circumstances that the party is responsible for.

Section 379 if the debtor promised the creditor to use a certain amount of penalties when they do not repay. Do not pay the debt properly. When the debtor is guilty, then take the penalty. If the repayment is to do is to abstain from any one. If they do, then violate the debt. Then take the penalty.

Section 380 if the debtor has promised to give a penalty when they do not repay. Creditors will call for a penalty that will be paid on behalf of the debt. But if the creditor shows to the debtor that the penalty will be applied, then. It is no longer the right to repay debt.

If the creditor has the right to claim for non-payment. The penalty will be taken in the lowest amount of damage. Proof of damages, moreover. You are allowed to prove it.

Section 381 if the debtor has promised to give a penalty when they do not pay properly. For example, if you do not pay your debts at the scheduled time. In addition to call for repayment. Creditors will call for a penalty to be taken with it again.

If the creditors have the right to claim compensation in debt repayment is not appropriate. You shall enforce the provisions of Section 380, paragraph 2.

If the creditor accepts repayment. The penalty can be called upon to reserve the right to do so at the time of repayment.

Section 382 if the promise to make other payments to be a penalty. Do not use the money. You are required to apply the provisions of Section 379 to 381, but if the creditor called for a penalty. Claims to go to.

Section 383 if the penalty for confiscation exceeds The court is reduced to a fair amount. In order to determine just how. You have to understand the interests of all creditors are lawful. It's not just the property. When the money is paid. The request to reduce the demand.

Except as provided in sections 379 and 382, ​​you shall apply the same method. When a person promises to make a penalty when he or she refrained from doing any of that.

Section 384 if the repayment of the contract is not complete. Agreed with the penalties in not fulfilling the contract is not perfect. Even the parties will know that the contract is not complete.

Section 385. If the debtor disputed the payment of the penalty, claiming that he had paid the debt, then he said that the debtor must prove the debt. Unless the repayment of his own will be to abstain from any one.

Section 386 If a party has the right to terminate the contract by contract or by the provisions of the law. The termination of such contract is made with intent to the other party.

Indicate the intent in the preceding paragraph. You may not be able to withdraw.

Section 387 If one party fails to pay the debt The other party will set a reasonable period. Then notify the party to pay the debt within that time. If the party does not pay the debt within the specified period. The other party will terminate the contract.

Section 388. If the object of the contract is By the condition or by the intent that the parties have expressed. It is possible to accomplish it, but with the repayment at the time it is set. Or within a certain period of time, which is defined. And the time or time has passed by one of the parties do not pay debts. You said the other party to terminate the contract. I must say that in the previous section.

Section 389 If all or part of the repayment becomes impossible, for any reason, the debtor shall be penalized. Creditors will terminate the contract.

Section 390 If, in any contract, the parties are multiple persons on one side or the other You will use your right to terminate the contract, but when all those parties together. I use them all together. If the right to terminate a contract with a person in the right class is suspended. The right to terminate the contract with others. It will end with.

Section 391 When a party has exercised its right to terminate the contract. Each party requires that the other party return to its original position. But it will be detrimental to the rights of outsiders can not find.

The money to be used in the case mentioned in the paragraph. You add interest. From time to time.

The work is done and it allows the use of the property. To pay back You can do it with the money you pay for it. Or if the contract is to take money. Then use it.

The exercise of the right to terminate the contract to wound up the right to claim damages.

Section 392 Debt repayment of the contracting party arising from the termination of the contract. To comply with the provisions of Section 369

Section 393. If no period is set, exercise the right to terminate the contract. The other party will set a reasonable period. Then notify the parties entitled to terminate the contract within the said time. Will the contract be terminated or not? If not terminated within that period. The right to terminate the contract is suspended.

Section 394 If the property which is the object of the contract is devastated in part because of the action or the fault of the person who has the right to terminate it. Or the person has rendered the return impossible. To change the property to other things with the composition or adaptation. You said the right to terminate the contract is suspended.

        If the property of the contract is lost or damaged without the action or fault of the person who has the right to terminate the contract. The right to terminate the contract is not to stop it.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1113/2560.

            Debt settlement by the three disputes due to the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs to both to mitigate damage from the fraudulent actions of the case, so it must be considered. Defendant is bound to pay the debt by not being contrary to the intent of the parties or the debtor's debt under Section 314 of the agreement is not a compensation agreement as the defendant. When the defendant is the signatory to pay the three disputed checks. To be liable for the check in the amount of 3,000,000 baht to the plaintiff in accordance with Section 900 paragraph one, Section 914, Section 989, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 928/2560.

           The overdraft agreement specifies the interest rate on the current account balance. After the contract date, the interest rate announced by the lender or the Bank of Thailand is changed. The highest interest rate charged by the lender is higher than the contractual rate. The borrower allows the lender the power to adjust the interest of the contract as the lender immediately. Without telling the borrower. The borrower agrees to adjust interest rates from the date the lender determines. The change in interest rates does not depend on whether the defendant defaulted or failed to pay the debt. In this case, there is no penalties. The court has no power to reduce it. The plaintiff has the right to call the defendant liable for interest only interest rate and maximum discount, not the case of debtors defaulting on the debt or in accordance with the bank's notice A. The interest rate must not exceed 14.5 percent per annum.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10316/2559.

             According to Section 377, "When entering into the contract. If anything is given as a deposit. You shall be deemed to make a deposit that is evidence that the contract has been made, then this deposit will be a guarantee to comply with the contract. "This would indicate that the deposit is the property that was provided on the day. promise To testify that the contract will be made. It is a contractual obligation that the parties intend to use as part of their repayment. According to the contract to buy or contract deposit # 4, if the buyer does not breach the contract to transfer. This Agreement shall be deemed canceled. I do not need to notice. And the buyer agrees to sell all the payment of the deposit. When the facts are heard, the plaintiff is a breach of contract. The defendant will take all the deposit under the agreement. The defendant does not need to detect the damage received. Because the deposit is not penalties. And under the Civil and Commercial Code does not give the court the right to reduce the deposit, such as penalties.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10300/2559.

               Diagnosing the problem that the contract is unfair or not. The criteria laid down in Section 4, Paragraph 3 of the Unfair Contract Act, BE 2540 (1997), that the agreement is a type of agreement or that the plaintiff has to comply with or exceed the obligations. The normal expectation is that the agreement may hold that the plaintiff has the advantage or not by the third paragraph of Article 4. For example, the definition of the term as a liability or liability to the obligations than the law. The contract is terminated without justification. In the case of a contract for the appointment of a motorcycle supplier, H has specified the terms and conditions of the contract as a year-to-year contract. Automatic renewal will be made in case there is no notice of termination prior to maturity. Clause 8.1 states that either party has the right to terminate this agreement without breach of contract. By sending the notice of termination to the other party in advance at least 90 days before the expiration of the contract of the original contract or the term of the contract. The contract that the plaintiff has the right to terminate the contract renewal to the defendant and the defendant is entitled to terminate the contract extension to the same. When the facts are heard. The plaintiff has a product sales and service standards are lower than the defendant's first defendant, the defendant has the right to terminate the contract expires in accordance with Article 8.1 is not a contract that has the characteristics or the plaintiff must act or bear the burden. Beyond that, the custom is expected to be normal or an agreement that may hold that the defendant is unfavorable to the plaintiff. Therefore, the agreement under Clause 8.1 is not an unfair contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9961/2559.

              Hire Purchase Agreement No. 9 states that "If the hire purchase defaults for one installment, etc., it shall be deemed that such contract is terminated by the lender without prior notice", and Clause 11 states that "In the event of a default by the lessee, Many times If the lender to waive any default or breach of contract. When considering the two agreements together, it can be seen that even if the leaseee fails to pay any installment payment, it can not be considered as absolute. The lease agreement must be terminated immediately under contract No. 9, because there may be cases where the lease, waiver, default or breach of contract to hire. As stated in the contract, Article 11 allows the lease time to be paid by the lessee after the payment due date. The contract is still binding. This case, when the fact that the defendant to pay rent to the plaintiff's 13 installments, since the payment of the second installment of the defendant, the defendant did not meet the specified period of time in the contract. The plaintiff accepted the lease. Such circumstances indicate that the plaintiff allowed the default of default to the defendant, the contract is not considered immediately because the defendant defaulted on the default and still want the lease agreement is bound to continue. The lease was not canceled because the defendant defaulted on the payment of the second to the 13th installment, even after the payment. However, The plaintiff's waiver of the payment of the second installment to the 13th installment, the defendant did not consider that the plaintiff's waiver default payment for hire purchase in another period. As specified in the contract. 11, when the defendant did not pay the 14th installment and the next period until the filing date for more than two years and no other circumstances show that. Plaintiff's default to another defendant. Or any other circumstance that shows. The parties do not consider the time to pay the lease contract. Therefore, it must be considered a contract to terminate under the contract No. 9, so there is no reason for the plaintiff to be required to notify the time prescribed in Section 387

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8484 - 8485/2559

           Termination of employment contract, whether in the case of the employer's intention to terminate employment or the employee's intention to resign. There is no law governing the intent of a person to act in accordance with a form or evidence in writing. It is not the case that the law requires witnesses to show documents. Not subject to the Civil Code Section 94, although the plaintiffs will both be signed off the letter. But it is also possible to bring witnesses that the plaintiffs both signed off the letter because the defendant was threatened. The Central Labor Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not voluntarily sign the letter. It's like listening to evidence.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8374/2559.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7620/2559.

                The additional contract attached to the contract of employment. Clause 3 states that employees agree to work for the company for not less than 2 years from the date of work. If the employee wishes to resign before the due date. The employee agrees to indemnify the Company for not less than the last month salary paid by the Employee. Can be considered as a default agreement for damage defaults. It is a penalty agreement when the plaintiff fails to pay the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 379 and 380, if it is too high, the Central Labor Court has the power to use penalties to reduce penalties in a reasonable amount of time to reflect the interests of. All creditors are lawful. It is not only the property of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one, that is, the Central Labor Court must consider the interests of the defendant as a creditor of all lawful. Not only the damage is calculated in money. In addition, penalties are also set to punish the plaintiff, who is a debtor, as well as the contract of employment. I like to consider the grounds of the debtor's contract that is deliberately committed offense to exploit his advantage over the other party or not. The Central Labor Court will not be liable for any damages, as there is no provision in the Civil and Commercial Code, which provides the power to stop all penalties. Therefore, the Central Labor Court must listen to the facts of the defendant's lawfulness. The purpose of the contract is to work for 2 years, the need to contract like this. The importance of the position of the plaintiff to the defendant. Other non-property damage Including the reason that the plaintiff's breach of labor contract is a deliberate act to exploit their own advantage over the other party or not. Then scrutinize the facts of the interests of the defendant, all of which are lawful, impose a fine.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7570/2559.

            Salesman's Guide to Clause 14 requires salespeople to be accountable for every sales item they sell, such as a store, a non-refundable check, etc. It is a pre-emptive injury guarantee that an employee with compensation. Sales will be liable for damages caused by the decision to sell the product to the customer of the employer. It is a contract of reciprocal rights and benefits between the employer and the employee. It does not affect the public order or the morals of the people. But the defendant, the employer imposed a regulation that the plaintiff, who is an employee who performs the duties of a lawful and honest labor contract, will also be responsible for the damage that he did not cause. It is a regulation that makes employers more advantageous and unfair to employees. The salesman's manual will remain effective for the plaintiff's liability to pay for the goods of the defendant's customers only if the plaintiff's first decision to sell goods and receive payment by check from the customer is not accurate and dishonest. As a result, the goods can not be paid to the defendant, even if the plaintiff to receive payment for goods from the customer as a check, and later refused to pay the goods. Why However, when the plaintiff is responsible for selling goods and accept payment of goods in accordance with the manual for the salesman said. The defendant did not receive payment for goods. Acting under the employment contract in good faith and in the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not required to pay the amount of goods under the check to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7344/2559.

             Advertising contracts contain printed text in the form of a printed version of the contract. With handwritten text in the blank space for the topics in the handwritten text format, in addition to specifying the details of the parties and the signatory of the contract representing the counterparty. The agreement of the parties in the document below. "When the terms of reference of the employer are approved," which is not as large as the pre-condition, the contract will be effective when the condition is fulfilled. In addition, the circumstances of the parties during the liaison and in the meeting are not referred to the terms of reference of the employer. If the conditions precedent to make the contract as a result. That condition is the essence of the agreement that the parties should negotiate on. But the time has come to publish. It is not reasonable if the contract has not yet taken place, so the message is only a payment agreement. Advertising contracts are binding on the parties. The contract is considered as a contract of employment. If the plaintiff, the contractor to complete the job to the employer. The employer must pay for the success of the work. When the parties know that the advertising contract of the defendant is intended to allow foreigners to know the information Bangkok tourism in a timely manner. How to publish a new ad post at any time. The plaintiff also needs approval from the first defendant. For the defendant to consider what time period to be appropriate. And the most benefit from advertising it. The plaintiff published the article at the time the defendant did not agree. Therefore, it may not be considered that the plaintiff has completed the work for the defendant, the employer. The plaintiff has no right to demand that the first defendant pay the full amount of the contract. However, the plaintiff has published the defendant's article in the newspaper. I believe that it is beneficial to the defendant, the defendant is the first one, the employer is obliged to pay the part of the benefits. The court has the power to set reasonable pay. When the first defendant asked the plaintiff to publish an article in August 2010 to avoid problems with the bill. Indicates that the person concerned speculates that the employer's reference requirements should be approved at that time. It is possible to deduce that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's wages within August 2010, the payment of such wages is due within August 2010, but when the repayment period, this wage is inferred by the circumstances. It is not scheduled for the day of the calendar. It must be considered that the defendant is the default when the plaintiff has been warned by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 204, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7302/2559.

              When the contract to buy and sell becomes a contract that does not schedule the payment of the calendar day and the defendant told the plaintiff to pay the debt within a new period of time. But the plaintiff does not follow. The plaintiff is in breach of contract, not to pay debts. Defendant has the right to make a deposit under Section 378 (2) and have the right to land for sale to other people. Not considered an agreement to terminate the purchase agreement with the plaintiff by default. Act on Unfair Contract, 1997, Section 7 stipulates that the contract is to provide anything as a deposit, if there is a case that must be forfeited. If the deposit is too high. The court will only reduce the damage to real damage. The plaintiff signed a contract to buy land to defend the defendant at a price of 1,400,000 baht deposit 500,000 baht or 35.71 percent of the land price. Compared with the price of the deposit. I can see that the deposit is too high. Should reduce the deposit to take down. The plaintiff and the defendant did not prove that the actual damage that the defendant received. But if the defendant sells and receives the land from the plaintiff, the money will be used to find other benefits. When the plaintiff breached the contract. The defendant entered into a contract to sell the land to the new buyer at a reduced price, should reduce the deposit to be confiscated to 200,000 baht, which is the amount that the defendant is likely to be damaged and the defendant must return a deposit of 300,000 baht to the plaintiff. The problem is in accordance with the provisions of the law giving the court the power to hear the case and the problem of public order. The Supreme Court has the power to lift itself up. For the defendant must return to the plaintiff. It is not the case that the defendant defaulted to pay interest under Section 224, paragraph one, both due to the plaintiff's breach of contract. Defendant is not required to pay interest of 300,000 baht to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6893/2559.

              The plaintiff is a trustee of the contract with the defendant to the contract with the defendant to identify the beneficiary is a contract for the benefit of outsiders. The fact is that MPs and Thais are dead, whether they die before or after the death of Thaksin, when the beneficiary dies. Therefore, it can not be considered that the benefits will be paid under the terms of the policy and not considered the money that the defendant must pay to. As a beneficiary of the property, the beneficiary can not take advantage of the life insurance contract, so the benefits of the life insurance contract must fall to the heirs of the insured as a legacy of property as a manager. The inheritance of the MP or the heirs will have the right to claim money under the terms of life insurance. Coast. The plaintiff is a trustee of the North. We have no right to sue the defendant to pay under the policy of insurance. Have.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6108/2559.

             The plaintiff sued the defendant because of a breach of contract 1 because the defendant sold the property in a bankruptcy case does not meet the auction notice, the defendant has no right to deposit. The court ordered a refund of the deposit to the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff brought the case filed with the Central Bankruptcy Court, which has jurisdiction. The issue that the plaintiff sued about the order under the authority of the official receiver in the bankruptcy proceeding of the debtor that the official receiver is not allowed to extend the deposit period and not return the pledge to the plaintiff as the plaintiff. Notice to If the plaintiff does not agree with the order or action of the official receiver. The law requires bankruptcy. The creditor or any person who has been damaged by the act or judgment of the Official Receiver may file the objection to the court within 14 days from the date of knowing the action or decision. Under the Bankruptcy Act BE 2483, Section 146, which is the only provisions against the order of the official receiver. When the plaintiff did not file a petition to the court in a bankruptcy case, the plaintiff has ordered or executed within 14 days, the plaintiff prosecuted this case is considered as a non-compliance within the period under Section 146. That is the right to dishonesty. Plaintiff sued

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5091/2559.

             Contracts to buy and sell the land dispute with the construction of the defendant by the defendant to pay the defendant to the defendant 1,691,272 baht with outstanding debt 22,828 baht, it appears that the plaintiff as a heir to the defendant. The defendant, either party or both parties expressed their wish to terminate the contract in any way. It shows that both parties wish to enforce the agreement as follows: When the contract to buy and sell the land dispute with the building contract is reciprocal, the parties. They have to pay each other. If one party to pay debts, then the other party must repay the debt. Four plaintiff sued the plaintiff to enforce the registration of transfer of ownership of land disputes and buildings to the four plaintiffs. The application for the final settlement of the land and buildings to the defendant under the contract. Because the four plaintiffs understand that the defendant has paid the full price of the defendant as such. The plaintiff is not the power to sue. The four plaintiffs have the power to sue. And the court will have jurisdiction to adjudicate in accordance with the intent of the parties. The defendant registered the transfer of land and buildings to the four plaintiffs. And the four plaintiffs together to pay the house and land to the defendant. It is a debt repayment agreement. The case is not judged beyond the four plaintiff's request.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4900/2559.

             When the facts are heard. The plaintiff did not breach the lease. There is no reason for the defendant to exercise the right to terminate the lease. The defendant has a letter of termination to the plaintiff is not like. However, the plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued the defendant to return the money and reimbursement of money to renovate the building without asking the defendant to comply with the contract to hold that the plaintiff would. Terminate the lease It is a case of the voluntary partnership by default. Each party must return to the same place as the former Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391 paragraph one, although the improvement of the commercial buildings will be for the benefit and business of the plaintiff. But because the defendant is the right to terminate the lease without cause. I have to cancel the lease later. And the plaintiff's job to improve the building is a job that the plaintiff and the defendant occupied. Plaintiffs like to charge for the renovation of the townhouse dispute.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4437/2559.

           When the agreement to terminate the contract will be suspended. The money the plaintiff delivered to the seven defendants to repay some. To return the money back to the contractor to return to the status as it was before the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391, paragraph one, the plaintiff's seven defendants have agreed to confiscate all the money paid. The agreement is considered as a fine imposed on the amount when the debt is not paid properly. If the court has the power to reduce it to a reasonable amount under Section 383 paragraph one, the plaintiff is a breach of contract. The seven defendants have the right to forfeit the plaintiff's payment under the terms of the contract. When the court reduced the penalty by giving the defendant seven nights, some penalties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the right to interest from the penalty returned since December 29, 2006 (the date the plaintiff's application for termination of the contract to buy and sell the land) is not because the seven defendants forfeit the use of the contract. Like However, when the Supreme Court has the final judgment, the seven defendants jointly pay 22,000,000 baht. The seven defendants have a fixed amount of debt and is due to pay. Interest must be paid at a rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of reading the Supreme Court's judgment under Section 224, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3374/2559.

            According to the advertising campaign of the Union Mall of the defendant. In addition to the space available for rent, there are also restaurants. fitness center And other places show that the defendant intended to provide such facilities to attract customers to reserve the right and to lease space within the project. The project area between the plaintiff and the defendant has reason to believe. The intent of the defendant proposed to arrange such services as the defendant advertised. And the plaintiff was willing to respond to the lease agreement because it believes that the defendant has advertised it, which is a modern project that people spend a lot of money. The plaintiff has the opportunity to sell the product of the plaintiff. Value for space investment. The text of the lease will not specify the message as the defendant ad. However, the defendant must be bound and obliged to arrange the place of service according to the advertising words advertised to the plaintiff and other customers. Advertisements of the defendant to the plaintiff to the lease. It is part of the lease agreement within the project between the plaintiff and the defendant. When it appears that on the opening day, the defendant also arranged the service and business of the defendant did not complete the advertisement. There are no delays beyond the control of the defendant. The defendant is a party to the lease. The plaintiff has the right to terminate the lease. By the plaintiff and the defendant, each party must have the other party to return to its original position under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3120/2559.

             The contract to buy and sell the land of 15 plots with the building between the plaintiff and the defendant is a contract that the plaintiff and the defendant to the contract to complete one more time. And it is a reciprocal contract. When the plaintiff has not paid the remaining land 8,500,000 to the defendant, the first claim to the defendant to transfer the land 15 total plots and buildings under the contract to buy and sell may not be enforceable. The plaintiff is not a creditor of the defendant in the meaning of the provisions of Section 350. The action of the defendant, who transferred the land 3 plots in 15 plots to the second defendant, therefore, lack of elements of the offense. Creditors' base

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2764/2559.

            Notice to the defendant to the plaintiff and the guarantor. In addition to the three consecutive installment payments, the Company has also identified other debtors, attorneys fees and delinquent interest. The debt arising from the late payment of the plaintiff, resulting in costs and interest. The plaintiff is responsible for the lease contract 4 and 9, the meter, fines and radio expenses for the use of cars that are leased to the public or taxi. Usually, the plaintiff as a car user must be the expense. If the defendant as a payer to pay instead of the plaintiff would like to claim under the lease agreement Article 10, the defendant said to pay the debt as it is entitled. When the notice was delivered by the plaintiff on April 30, 2010, the plaintiff will pay the debt as demanded within 30 days, which expires on May 30, 2010, but the plaintiff paid the 15th installment on May 3, 2010, and Paid for the 16th installment with delayed interest on May 21, 2010. The 17th installment of the hire purchase contract. The plaintiff paid on June 3, 2010 when the plaintiff did not pay the hire purchase. Wash all payments to be paid to the defendant within 30 days of the notice. The hire purchase agreement shall be terminated after the due date. The message is that. If payment is delayed than May 20, 2010, one additional installment will be required, but only the outstanding installment installment will be paid in accordance with the repayment period. The plaintiff must pay the debt within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. If the plaintiff settles the debt after May 20, 2010, the plaintiff must pay the 18th installment payment for an additional installment or pay the outstanding debt 4 times, which shows that the defendant wishes the plaintiff to pay the outstanding rent to complete. Period It does not allow for late payment of rent. In accordance with the circumstances of the defendant, the delayed interest from the plaintiff. It is another part of the defendant that the time to pay the hire purchase. Also, the defendant to hire a car to track the car to recover the car on August 31, 2010 pointed out that the defendant strictly according to the notice without wishing to hire a contract to continue. The plaintiff paid the money into the account of the defendant after the lease. Defendant is the defendant as stated in the lease agreement Article 15.3, which the defendant has written to the plaintiff that the plaintiff did not deliver the car after the lease agreement. The defendant had to pay a lot of money to track the car. Defendant to know that the plaintiff to hire a car to sell by way of hire to the plaintiff, the defendant will take the money received from the plaintiff to deduct damages for tracking the car is reasonable and according to the article. promise The deduction for damages in the absence of benefits while not receiving the car again. The fact is that the lease agreement is terminated due to the plaintiff's breach of contract and the defendant has the right to terminate the lease.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2621/2559.

             Defendant 1 bought the land, which had walls and some disputes from the defendant. By signing the agreement. The buyer has been informed since the date of the contract to buy and sell the land that the buyer must agree to the plaintiffs and the three passersby enter the land that has been purchased. Or the registration of the servitude of the land when the seller to notify. Show that the defendant knew that the land was under the mortgage of the land of the three plaintiffs. The defendant jointly transferred land 1, which is a bank robbery in good faith, the first defendant can not be raised as a defense to the three plaintiffs to the end. In addition, the contract is a contract to benefit third parties, the defendant is bound to the contract. The defendant and the defendant, therefore, had to dismantle the wall that blocked the dispute.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2521/2559.

   Will be traded between the plaintiff and the defendant to buy real estate. The legal form and evidence of the contract under Section 456 paragraph two that the contract will sell or purchase real estate. If there is no written evidence, the signature of the responsible party is important. Or have been placed. Or have some debt. You will not be prosecuted. From the law. If the parties enter into contracts, they will have legal effect in the lawsuit. One must choose one of the documents to sign the responsible party. Or place a deposit or deposit. Or have some repayment. When the plaintiff and the defendant choose the form of a contract by contract or a contract to deposit. It is a case of evidence in a book. Signed by the plaintiff and the defendant to the parties to enforce the breach of contract. If the lawsuit is enforceable, the contract must be traded to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 94. Therefore, the plaintiff's testimony that the plaintiff also has a verbal agreement. Before the defendant informed the plaintiff that the road through the entrance to the disputed land connected to public roads. Section 94 (b). This problem, although not raised in the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal 8, but the law relating to public order. The relevant parties have the right to be raised by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 249, paragraph two (former), which is applicable when filing. The facts of the case can not be heard that there is a road agreement, as claimed by the plaintiff. Defendant is not breach contract. The plaintiff can not terminate the contract and demand deposits.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 933/2559.

             In consideration of the attachment clause of the membership contract, Article 3 states that "the starting date and the term of this contract shall be effective from the effective date. And to continue indefinitely without end. 3.1 The parties have given notice of termination to the other party in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance, or "even if the terms do not specify the terms or give reason to any party. One has the right to terminate the contract. But it is both the plaintiff and the defendant to terminate the contract is equal to both parties. Is not the right to the first defendant with a bargaining power over the contract to terminate or terminate without reasonable cause. In the event of any incident, the burden of the contract of his party will be heavier, without terminating the contract. And give the defendant the right to negotiate the superiority has the right to choose whether to terminate the contract or not. Although the plaintiff did not break the contract in essence. Therefore, such terms or agreements do not have the characteristics or effect of the plaintiff to act or take the burden than the normal expectation that may be regarded as advantageous to the plaintiff. Act of unfair contract, 1997, Section 4, paragraph three (3) Terms of membership contract, Article 3. 3.1 It is not an unfair contract, defendant 1, the plaintiff argues that the plaintiff. Represent the defendant and commit fraudulent smuggling UBC contract of the defendant to use and distribute. The registration of the apartment building for commercial purposes of the plaintiff without the permission and compensation to the defendant, which is a breach of contract in essence, so it is necessary to terminate the contract. It is the defendant to the plaintiff's liability under the contract to appoint an agent and subscription contract. I do not count the plaintiff's copyright infringement of the 1st defendant and there is no copyright dispute as a case in the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, which has the power to consider civil cases. It is not a court of intellectual property and international trade. Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal have the power to consider this case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2464/2559.

                 According to the Condominium Act, BE 2522 (1979), Section 18, Paragraph Two states that "Co-owners (ie, owners of condominium units) must jointly pay for expenses incurred from the provision of public services and those resulting from the use of utilities and facilities. Convenience available for use or for mutual benefit. And the costs of maintenance and operation of common property in proportion to which each co-owner has ownership of the common property under Section 14 or for the benefit of the condominium as defined in the " Therefore, it is obliged to pay the expenses as provided for in Section 18, paragraph two, and in the case that the application for registration. Matthew and legal ownership of a condominium unit The applicant must have a letter of credit from the expenses under Section 18 to be presented to the official as provided. Section 29 paragraph two, which states that. "In case of application for registration of rights and legal transfer of ownership in the apartment. The competent official shall register the right and juristic acts when the apartment is free of debt arising from the expenses under Section 18, with the certificate of the most debt free from the condominium company to show. "The plaintiff is the buyer only disputes from the auction. Of the Enforcement Officer, and even the plaintiff is not the debtor, who owes the debt expenses as specified in Article 18, paragraph However, the plaintiff's bid to buy a disputed room by the Enforcement Officer shall have the same effect as the plaintiff has entered into a contract. Will be responsible for repayment of the conditions specified in the notice of the Enforcement Officer to a third party instead of the debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 374, so when the owner of the apartment has a central debt owed to the defendant. The plaintiff has the obligation to pay the central debt to the defendant. The plaintiff is claiming that he is not the debt that the defendant called for payment, so they are not liable to pay debts under Section 18 paragraph two can not find.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15668/2558.

          The defendant empowered the plaintiff to bid for a job and contracted to build a school building with the Department of Education and the plaintiff's three construction of the three plaintiffs are investors and paid the defendant. If the plaintiff's lack of funds and the defendant paid advance payments. The plaintiffs will return the interest. The defendant became the representative of the three plaintiffs in the contract of construction with the Department of Education. The defendant is still liable under the construction contract with the Department of Education. But the plaintiffs and the three defendants must invest and construction. And the defendant is also liable under the contract is a joint agreement to engage in business. Is a reciprocal contract When the contract has no purpose, it is expressly prohibited by law. It is impossible or contrary to the peace or morals of the people under Section 150 of the contract is governed by Section 149 and 369 of the Civil and Commercial Code, although the plaintiffs claim that the defendant. representative But when the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff sued the plaintiffs agreed to work together to receive benefits. It is the plaintiff's understanding of the law that the contract is a representative contract. The court shall have the power to enforce the provisions of the contract of compensation to the case under Section 134 Civil Code Section 134 is not judged over or except in the plea that is prohibited under Civil Code Section 142

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15407/2558.

         Contract 2 states that the parties agree to register the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to register the land under the title deed No. 36717 of the plaintiff as a mortgage of land under the title deed No. 36715 of the defendant to a width of 12 meters, and the defendant agreed to register the servitude of a width of 9 meters. Within the land under the title deed no. 36715 of the defendant. For the land under the title deeds No. 36716, 36717 and 341 of the plaintiff, both parties agree to use as a way of life forever. Unless the defendant does not use the means of servitude for 5 years from the date of this contract onwards. I agree to register the cancellation of the service. According to the indictment and testimony, both the plaintiff and the defendant claimed that the other party did not register the plaintiffs' obligations to their respective parties. Both parties have argued the rights and obligations of the defendant if the plaintiff wants to force the plaintiff to force the plaintiff to file a plaintiff to the defendant, the first defendant will have to file a lawsuit or counterclaim. In order for the court to resolve disputes in respect of which the plaintiff must repay the defendant to the defendant at one time.

              According to the circumstances of this case, if the defendant set the issue of the case. The plaintiff may have a dispute, causing a dispute that the court must decide before the judge to force the plaintiff. When the defendant did not file a lawsuit, the court asked the plaintiff. The court can not judge the dispute in this section, and the plaintiff is forced to do so in return. It is not outside the subject matter under Section 142 of the defendant can not claim that the plaintiff does not submit to the plaintiff to defend the defendant that the first defendant has the right to refuse. Do not register the plaintiff's plaintiff as well.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13416/2558.

        The contract has a mind. If the contract term ends. Prohibited defendants work in any position or assist any other company in Thailand as a competitor. The watch is a two-year watchman's watch manufacturer. The deal is only a restriction on occupational competition with the plaintiff. It is not prohibited to engage in occupations that are closed to the defendant's defense, and the defendant is able to work or work in the company engaged in the business of selling other goods or services beyond the agreement. The area is prohibited only in Thailand. The nature of such an agreement is not to cut the occupation of the defendant. But it is forbidden to engage in certain occupations which are only competitions with the plaintiff for a period of time. It is a reciprocal agreement that protects the rights and benefits of the parties in the conduct of business. Do not close the way to do any of the parties can not exist. It is not against the peace or good morals of the people are not invalid.

            The agreement to prohibit the defendant from working after the termination of his employment as an employee of the plaintiff is an agreement to limit the defendant's rights. It must be interpreted in strict terms. When the terms of the employment agreement prohibiting the defendant from entering into employment or assisting any other company, the competitor of the plaintiff is prohibited only to companies that produce watches. The defendant resigned from being an employee of the plaintiff and then went to work with the company that operates the production line watch for export. Yes, the company that manufactures the housing, as the contract does not prohibit it. The work of the defendant against the company is not a breach of contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10942 - 10943/2558.

          To lease The defendant co-tenant agrees with the defendant that the two defendants agree that the defendant agreed to accept the passenger in the car to rent and the third party in the damage that the defendant employed a second defendant to drive the car to rent. More damage A contract for the benefit of third parties under Section 374 is not considered unfair contract, not binding under Section 4 of the Act on Unfair Contract, 1997. And not an agreement made in advance as a message unless the defendant is liable for fraud or negligence of serious negligence in his will be considered invalid under Section 373 because the defendant is still posthumously. Liability to prosecution in the event that the defendant violated the act in this one. It is a contract for the benefit of outsiders. The defendant in the first two defendants committed violations in the hire of a truck driver to damage the plaintiffs, the two defendants as the contractor is entitled to sue the defendant to compensate the defendant to act. Violation against both plaintiffs. The case is not a direct contract, so even the co-defendant is not the second defendant in the exercise of the right to recourse. The defendant 2 may file a defendant to take the plaintiff's case to the Civil and Commercial Code Section 57 (3). A defendant has the right to file a petition to the Court of First Instance to subpoena the defendant together with the defendant. have

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10514 - 10515/2558.

           Defendant was summoned in the case of the defendant's claim 1, the court found that the defendant may file a suit against the defendant for the use of recourse or to pay compensation as a case under Section 57 (3) ), Under Section 58, the petitioner who has entered into a spouse under Section 57 (3) has the right to file a lawsuit or a new case and may bring a new evidence. Appeal of the Supreme Court verdict or court order as provided by law. And even if the defendant does not have the appointment to file a statement. The right to request the court summon the defendant to join in the case, both defendants filed the request correctly during the trial. The defendant has the right to be a partner.

           The court ordered the defendant to join the couple as a favor. The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant has agreed that the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building in accordance with the layout of the lease. It is scheduled to start construction and construction time to be completed. The plaintiff can not start construction. The rental area has been registered with the Fine Arts Department as a historic site after the lease. The demolition of the old building and the construction of the new building of the plaintiff to meet the lease is not possible. It is considered that the repayment by the contract is impossible due to one of the circumstances that occurred after the debt and the debtor is not responsible. The debt relief from the repayment of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 219, paragraph one, the plaintiff can not be sued to force the defendant to comply with the contract and call for compensation.

              But the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a reciprocal contract, which the contractor is obliged to repay the debt even though the defendant will be released from the debt, but the defendant is entitled to a repayment. Section 372, paragraph one, the plaintiff is entitled to the payment of the rent paid on the contract date returned from the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10942 - 10943/2558.

           Although the second defendant will be transformed into a company, but Section 26 of the State Enterprise Act BE 2542 and the note at the end of the law also requires that the second defendant is a state enterprise. When the second defendant confirmed that it is a state enterprise, so it is considered that the second defendant is a state agency. Act of Liability for the violation of the 1996 Act, Section 4 When the defendant is an employee is the employee of the two defendants, the two plaintiff sued the defendant is not liable under Section 5 paragraph one of the defendant. . Liability for the violation of the defendant in 1996, the defendant did not share with the defendant liability for the two plaintiffs. To lease The defendant co-tenant agreement with the defendant that the two tenants that the defendant agreed to accept the passenger car in the rental and External damage in the defendant, the first defendant 2, the defendant committed a car rental to damage. A contract for the benefit of third parties under Section 374 is not considered unfair contract, not binding under Section 4 of the Unlawful Agreement, 1997. And not an agreement made in advance as a message unless the defendant is liable for fraud or gross negligence on his or her part. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 373 because the defendant is also liable to the two plaintiffs in violation of the defendant in this case. It is a contract for the benefit of outsiders. The defendant in the first two defendants committed violations in the hire of a truck driver to damage the plaintiffs, the two defendants as the contractor is entitled to sue the defendant to compensate the defendant to act. Violation against both plaintiffs. The case is not a direct contract, so even the co-defendant is not the second defendant in the exercise of the right to recourse. The defendant 2 may file a defendant to take the plaintiff's case to the Civil and Commercial Code Section 57 (3). A defendant has the right to file a petition to the Court of First Instance to subpoena the defendant together with the defendant. The Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant to pay the defendant 2 if the defendant does not pay the defendant and the third defendant to pay instead of not like because the case is not a guarantor.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6662/2558.

      Civil Code Section 322, paragraph two, states that "if the net proceeds of the sale of the property. I do not want to use the next law enforcement. The remaining money after deducting the fees and pay to all creditors are satisfied then. To the Enforcement Officer to pay the net or the amount of the rest to the debtor according to the judgment ... "Therefore, if the auction of property of the debtor under the judgment has a lot of revenue over the debt and the cost of enforcement. Debtors under the judgment are entitled to receive the rest of the refund. And the money the highest bidder was liable for the lack of a new auction is not worth the price and the auction price of the same class under Section 516 is a part of the sale of the plaintiff's property. The debtor in the original case. The defendant in this case, which is responsible for payment, refused to pay. The plaintiff, the debtor, was damaged. The argument of the plaintiff under Section 55 of the Civil Code, even in the contract of sale to the defendant with the Enforcement Officer will be labeled. If the defendant fails to pay the remaining amount of property. Allow the Enforcement Officer to take the deposit. And when the Enforcement Officer to auction the net proceeds are lower than before. Defendant to accept the full amount of defendant in the auction before. The agreement is only a condition of the above mentioned legal principles specified in the contract. It does not look like a compensation agreement in advance in any way. The defendant is liable to pay the penalty is not a penalty that the court will reduce the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4568/2558.

            Under the terms and conditions of contract 2.1 and 2.2 are conclusive that the defendant will accelerate the collection of the plaintiff's outstanding receivables using the receipt of the plaintiff as evidence to receive money from the plaintiff's receivables. After the defendant has received money from the plaintiff's debt, then the defendant is responsible for delivering the money to the plaintiff every week. If the defendant to hold the money is not delivered within the specified time, the defendant is a fraudulent intent. In addition, under clause 2.3 also states that if the defendant is able to track down the debt and deliver the plaintiff's total amount of 2,841,051 Baht, the plaintiff will transfer the claim to the plaintiff's debt 1,529,796 to the defendant. In the contract, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff in the case can not collect money from the plaintiff's debt. The intent of the plaintiff and the defendant to the intention that the first defendant to accelerate the debt to the plaintiff alone, as well as the obligation to deliver the money collected to the plaintiff every week. Otherwise, the defendant defaults to pay interest to the plaintiff. When the defendant gave the money collected to the plaintiff. But I can not collect another 1,099,529.55 baht, the defendant does not have to pay the amount to the plaintiff. As a result, the defendant 2 and 3, the guarantor is not liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 918/2558.

        The issue of the case is due to the indictment and testimony. It is not a new argument that has been raised by the counterpart. This case is based on the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's testimony. The only issue is that the forbidden teak moved out of the province of Lamphun. The defendant can not deliver the teak home to the plaintiff, the plaintiff or defendant is the contract. According to the teakwood trading house. And the letter to the plaintiff informed the defendant to refund the amount of 100,000 baht as an attachment to the complaint. Which is considered part of the indictment, there is no message that the defendant is required to seek permission to dismantle the house or ask for permission to move teak. So, the two lower court ruled that when the defendant has not filed a request for the house demolition to the defendant, it is considered that the defendant has not requested to pay the debt to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the right to not pay the debt to the defendant as well, and the plaintiff did not break the contract. The defendant outside the issue of the word "deposit" Civil and Commercial Code, Section 377 "When entering into the contract. If anything is given as a deposit. You assume that the deposit is a testimony that the contract has already been made ... "So the plaintiff's money to the defendant on the day of making a teak house trading. It is considered a deposit under the provisions of the law. When the facts can be heard that the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the defendant, the defendant failed to pay the debt. Defendant has the right to confiscate the amount of 50,000 baht under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 378 (2) The amount of 50,000 baht that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant after the date of the contract. Despite the statement at the end of the contract states that "the additional contract The buyer will transfer the additional deposit to the seller 50,000 baht, including a deposit of 100,000 baht. "However, this amount. The plaintiff has given the defendant after the contract date. It is not considered a deposit. As stated in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 377, but only the payment of the sale price of some teak house.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 17523/2557.

          The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is a reciprocal agreement. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have rights and obligations under the contract. If one party fails, the other party shall have the right to refrain from or not comply with the contract. When the plaintiff has never paid interest or money to the defendant since the contract is on. The plaintiff's consent to the plaintiff to act on the title deed and the land is considered a waiver for the plaintiff to contact the landlord. But the refusal to deliver all 8 land titles because the plaintiff defaulted to pay interest to the defendant under the contract. The case will be heard that the defendant misconduct was not available. The defendant sued the plaintiff to repay the loan and mortgage. Plaintiff's defendant has agreed to the court made a compromise agreement. The plaintiff paid a loan of 14,000,000 baht to the defendant, but then the plaintiff ignored the plaintiff, the defendant asked the court to set up the enforcement officer to seize the land plots on the 8 plots to auction the money. The plaintiff sued the defendant is this case. The circumstances of the case indicate that The plaintiff is the first party to breach contract. The plaintiff's lawsuit is exercised in bad faith and delayed the case that the defendant asked the defendant to auction the mortgage land to delay it. The plaintiff has no power to sue the defendant to indemnify for damages and interest.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 17245/2557.

          Contract 6, 7 and 7 have a clause 6 that the defendant 1 misconduct in the survey and appraisal of property or report the construction of the building. Be it by deliberate negligence or fraud, which results in a higher valuation of property. Or lower than normal as is true. The offense of a professional valuation by the defendant, the manager, employee or agent of the defendant, the defendant is liable for the loss of the plaintiff as the defendant. When the facts are heard, the employees of the 1st defendant assess the collateral of the three plaintiffs' customers incorrectly. The third and the third collaterals did not report the results of the construction of the rampant building on public roads, which would not be appraised. The higher the appraisal price, the less the contract. It is the defendant's fault that the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff. The fact is not that the SEC and the prosecution of the customer and the plaintiff's default. And the plaintiff sued the court for the sale of collateral, then the money is not enough. The work of the compensation of the plaintiff determined how to compensate. Terms of release

          16, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 that the case of a normal installment loan to the company to assess the debt before. No compensation is required. If the debtor debt reduction debt collateral debt. The company is estimated to be out of debt. In cases where the debtor has defaulted, the debtor will file a lawsuit and remove the debt from the company as assessed by the debt. However, the defendant was in breach of contract by assessing collateral value higher than the actual and not report the actual condition of the collateral. The plaintiff used the appraisal value as the basis for calculating the loan and approve loans to customers higher than the value. The real guarantee The risk of repayment in the amount of debt beyond the collateral price affects the overall business of the plaintiff. The case can be considered that the plaintiff has been damaged by the defendant's claim that the defendant did not pay the debt to the true purpose of the debt. Yes, it is true that real damage has not occurred.

         The plaintiff claims damages of 890,000 baht, the plaintiff's compensation as specified in the contract that the defendant agrees to indemnify the defendant at the amount set by the plaintiff. And the plaintiff determined the collateral value of the three customers are higher than the actual. The case is a pre-determined damages are penalties when they do not pay the debt properly. The court has the power to reduce the amount of equity by considering the interest of all creditors under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16524/2557.

           The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed to buy land. The defendant, who is the seller and his descendants must register the ownership of the land disputes and submit the request to separate the land disputes into sub plots, as the plaintiff, the buyer to determine. From the date of contract to buy to sell. The defendant and his successor will have to comply with the agreement. But after the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract to buy and sell the land dispute. It appears that the defendant has a dispute over the land dispute with the defendant later to defend the defendant from the land dispute, so during the case is said about the land dispute. The defendant has no way to separate the land disputes into sub plots as specified in the contract. And the plaintiff and the defendant also made a memorandum of agreement to buy land to sell disputes. The defendant agrees to the plaintiff postponed the payment schedule for some land. Under the contract to buy and sell. Go out until you agree on the subject of the land dispute was completed successfully. The plaintiff has not paid. And not to register the transfer of land dispute. It is in accordance with the additional agreement in the contract. Not the plaintiff's fault. The plaintiff is not a breach. The defendant has no right to terminate the contract with the deposit. The termination of the defendant's contract is not lawful. And the contract to buy and sell land disputes. The plaintiff is still bound by the defendant. The cause of the failure to comply with the contract is still available. With no additional agreement to change the other so that the defendant did not go to the separation and registration of the transfer of land disputes, the plaintiff would not breach of contract to buy and sell as well. The plaintiff has no power to sue the defendant to enforce the contract to claim damages.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16520/2557.

            When the defendant paid the contract by deducting the penalty as provided by the plaintiff. The plaintiff used the money to pay the defendant. The plaintiff can not sue for a penalty or a penalty. Although the penalty is too high, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one. Judgment of the Supreme Court 15948/2557. Contract to convert cassava. Article 11 is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant has a deadline to deliver cassava. The plaintiff will be scheduled to deliver each time if the defendant did not deliver the timely delivery of the plaintiff's time or delivery is not complete and the defendant does not terminate the contract. At first agreed to pay a fine to the plaintiff. When the defendant failed to deliver a cassava line to the plaintiff and did not terminate the contract to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to a fine from the defendant in accordance with the contract, even if the plaintiff to terminate the contract after more than seven years, the contract will not be considered as the time to deliver the work is not significant. Because the contract does not require the plaintiff to terminate the contract to the defendant before the right to a fine. But the plaintiff did not terminate the contract within a reasonable time, but abandoned until the fine amount is unreasonably high. The plaintiff contributed to the damage caused by neglect, no treatment, wipe or mitigate damage. The court has the power to reduce the number of cases under Section 223

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15124/2557.

           The message in the brochure for the rent of the building of the defendant is that there are more than 250 stores. The ground floor is the second floor. The area is a food court and stores. The third floor is a language teaching center and tutorial center. The food and parking lot has 100 seats, so it is important to convince business operators that the facts are true. The stated Businesses in this place will have good results, and the defendant also launched a project booth. Stick sheet And the defendant's employees 1 to the interested parties, including the plaintiff. In this shopping center there will be famous shops. Including the defendant will make a marketing plan for the management team is able to convince customers to use the business services within the building. The fact is not the same as the contract to get the right to lease booths and lease space in the building between the plaintiff and the defendant made the same. The contract is reciprocal, both parties have rights and obligations to each other, even brochures are not included in the contract. The fact is that the advertiser is a substance that the defendant intended to convince the plaintiff to enter into a contract. When the defendant did not perform as advertised. It is considered that the plaintiff was given the lease area as agreed, the defendant must return the money to get the right to lease the plaintiff. Including the cost of decorating the place where the plaintiff lost in the execution of the contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13357/2557.

           When considering the compromise agreement, all the time. Show that the plaintiff intended to bring all the land back to sell themselves. The redemption of land from the bank by the number of individual. But the fact is that. Both sides of the time to give each other such. Will claim that one party is wrong to compromise. If the three defendants breach the compromise agreement. Plaintiffs prefer to enforce the lawsuit in accordance with the compromise agreement. But the plaintiff did not. And the three defendants transferred the land to outsiders already. The land is considered as the essence of the agreement in the compromise agreement. The repayment of the three defendants is impossible. Both parties can not comply with the contract. And the compromise agreement will not be effective, so both sides must return to their original position.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 20333/2056.

          The requirements for submitting tenders. The plaintiff has the bidder check the place to be used in the construction prior to bidding. Before submitting the tender, the defendant sent the employee to see the area to be constructed. Before that, the defendant will submit a tender package, it is well known that the construction may be a problem with the neighboring land. It is also voluntary and agreed to bid on the plaintiff with the plaintiff is bound to enter into a contract with the plaintiff within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice in accordance with the terms of the tender. It may not be possible to arrange a meeting between plaintiffs, the defendant and the neighboring landlords to claim a ground for refusal to enter into a contract. The defendant jointly petitioned. In the area inspection is just a general inspection to bid only construction. I do not know the details of the impact on the adjacent land. It is not the defendant jointly defective or neglected to check the details. It can not be used as a reason to not be bound by the terms of the tender. And the defendant jointly petitioned. The plaintiff must terminate the contract before the right to use the pledge of the defendant's share of the defendant agreed that the plaintiff did not enter into a contract with the terms of the tender. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff, which is liable under the pre-contractual conditions. The plaintiff would like to sue the defendant jointly liable to the defendant in accordance with such requirements.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13705/2056.

             Even after the defendant entered the work, it appears that the defendant was unlawfully appointed, causing the defendant to vacate. But when the defendant has done his duty, without any damage. Exit of the defendant did not affect the work that the defendant has done on duty. And when the defendant acts to benefit the plaintiff. The defendant shall have the right to receive salaries and other compensation from the plaintiff because of such duties. The plaintiff has no right to call the defendant to return salaries and other compensation before leaving the office.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9528/2557.

              The petition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed the verdict of the Court of Appeal on the issue of the plaintiff to raise the age of the claim to force the defendant to pay for the central portion of the non-expiry. Claiming that the plaintiff is a buyer of the property. Even a condominium juristic person will have the right to demand that the applicant transfer the ownership of the condominium unit due to the central expenses. Condominium Act, 2522, Section 29, but when the debt is 5 years, the plaintiff is entitled to repay the debt not later than 5 years is a clear statement of facts and legal arguments against the verdict. Court of Appeal The petition of the plaintiff is a lawful petition.

         Central expenses that co-owners are required to pay to a condominium entity, even if the Condominium Act BE 2522 (1979) was made after the Civil and Commercial Code, and was intended to benefit the common owner. Condominium Act 1979 does not prescribe the age of the right to claim for such funds. Must comply with the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code when the defendant's obligation to pay monthly expenses. However, no payment is considered as accrued. The age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (4) has already provided. Adjustments and additional charges resulting from non-payment of central expenses owed to the equipment of central expenses, therefore, are 5 years old, as well as the president's debt. It is not a case that the Civil and Commercial Code or any other law does not prescribe the age to be 10 years, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 is in any way.

           In the claim to pay the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/9 that if not applicable within the time required by law. The claim is age. Forcing the creditor to claim rights within the time required by law. Because otherwise, the debtor will have the right to refuse the claim under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/10 and Section 193/29 that when not. Lifting up the fight. The court can not claim the age of dismissal. It does not mean that the creditors have to claim. The debtor has the right to refuse by raising the age of fighting only. If the debtor has filed a lawsuit to settle the debt, he will repay the creditor's right to the extent possible under the terms of the maturity date. It is equal to the repayment of the creditor's claim by raising the age of the fight. This has the effect of causing the creditor to not be able to enforce the debt beyond the legal period as well as to fight the case in which the debtor is sued. The court has raised the age of diagnosis.

         The plaintiff is the buyer of the property, not the debtor who owes the debt. However, the plaintiff has the obligation to pay debts owed to the defendant before transferring the ownership of the apartment. Condominium Act BE 2522, Section 18, 29 and 41, which is a condition of the auction under the notification of the Enforcement Officer and as prescribed by law. It is the same as the plaintiff has agreed to pay the debt to the third party instead of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 374 that the plaintiff would like to raise the age to fight the first defendant who benefits from the contract is based. P. 376 on public debt. Penalty and pay is 5 years old and the plaintiff raised the fight. The plaintiff is liable for payment of central expenses. Fines and surcharges to the defendant no more than 5 years

  For fines and extra money, which the plaintiff did not request the court to judge how. But when the plaintiff is obliged to pay. Court of First Instance will judge the plaintiff's liability to the defendant is no more than or except in the case. And according to the regulations of the defendant, the fine of 10 percent per month of the amount of arrears. It is considered a fine of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 381, paragraph one, if the excess of the court shall be reduced to a reasonable amount under Section 383 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11379/2556.

         Conditions that require the defendant to comply with the advance if the defendant is unable to perform the contract. The plaintiff is entitled to a fine and a fee of 2 defendants at a rate of 2 percent per month, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to a voluntary and penalties. If it is too high, the court has the power to reduce the amount of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one is a contract or agreement, the defendant is liable or burdensome than the law. It is considered unfair contract terms. The Act on Unfair Contract, 1997, Section 4

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6664/2556.

       Even the defendant as a lender will not have the title deed under Section 241 because the loan is not a property dispute. However, when the agreement under the loan agreement, the lender has the right to seize the dispute as collateral until the borrower to repay the debt is an agreement that the parties voluntarily made. It is not against the law or public order will be effective. The lender is entitled to hold the property until the borrower to repay the contract. The plaintiff is not entitled to a title deed. And the loan to the plaintiff to repay the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2566/2556.

           Extraordinary contracts are more than ordinary contracts. Must be a contract that any party has a commitment to increase separate from the normal practice of the contract. The defendant approved the loan to the plaintiff to build a shopping center in the amount of 27,000,000 baht, but the defendant agreed to allow the plaintiff to apply for a loan by the plaintiff to make a contract for the defendant, so the amount of money the plaintiff has been approved by the defendant. It is only the maximum amount that the plaintiff has the right to support the defendant. The amount of money to be bound to the defendant as approved in any way. It can not be heard that the plaintiffs' sponsorship of the shopping center project is a special contract, rather than a normal loan agreement.

          Debt overdue loan with debt under the loan agreement is different. The terms and methods of interest calculation vary according to the parties agreed. When the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the defendant to deduct money in the current account to repay the loan. It is a binding agreement to apply so that when the plaintiff has no money left in the current account to the defendant to repay the loan. The defendant agreed to allow the plaintiff to overdraft the current account to pay off the loan. The interest of the defendant in this case is the interest of the agreement. Yes, interest-bearing interest is not.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2569/2056.

          The plaintiff purchased land and commercial buildings from the two defendants, plots 1314 and 1315 with a deposit of 100,000 baht will be considered as a deposit and evidence that the contract was made under the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 377 Even with the purchase of land with commercial buildings will be labeled as a contract. And the defendant did not do it. But the reservation specifies the price of land and commercial buildings. And that the booking amount of 100,000 baht with the transfer of ownership to the defendant to pay. The plaintiff's intent was that the defendant agreed to transfer land and commercial buildings together. The case is a complete agreement to buy and sell land and commercial buildings between the plaintiff and the defendant.

            So, the land purchase agreement with the two commercial buildings is a contract to buy and sell. The facts raised in the petition. It is not a matter that was raised in the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal 2 is prohibited by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 249, paragraph one contract to buy and sell land and commercial buildings between the plaintiff and the defendant. Reciprocal agreement When the debt is different, it is not fixed. Each party will call the other party to repay the debt immediately. By the time limit. Notice to the other to pay the debt within the time limit set by Civil and Commercial Code, Section 387, Section 369, the defendant has written notice of the transfer of land title and commercial building number 1314, with a reasonable period for the plaintiff to repay. But the plaintiff ignored. The defendant has the right to terminate the contract. Defendant is entitled to a deposit of 100,000 baht under Section 378 (2)

           Part of the land with building No. 1315, the defendant terminated the contract without notifying the plaintiff to pay debts before the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 387 when both parties to terminate the contract. Even if no party breaks the contract by the circumstances. The plaintiff's intent was that the defendant would voluntarily terminate the contract with each other. An agreement to buy and sell land and commercial buildings, No. 1315, is no longer binding. In the absence of any contract. Defendant is not entitled to a deposit of 100,000 baht for the contract to pay the plaintiff to the defendant under the agreement to buy and sell land with two commercial buildings. It is not a deposit of Baht 100,000, but it is a payment of land and some commercial buildings. When the contract will be sold to sell. The party must return to its original position.

          The money to be spent together to add interest, but the time to receive it under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391, paragraph one and paragraph two. The defendant has to return the deposit under the agreement to buy and sell land and commercial buildings No. 1315 and the price of land together with commercial buildings, both plots of which the plaintiff paid to the defendant with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per year since. April 2, 2002, the date of receipt.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6237/2555.

           While contracting to buy and sell land and contract for land development and construction of houses. The plaintiff and the four defendants know already that disputed land is in the area to be expropriated for the road, but there are no exact road boundaries. Later, a royal decree was issued to set up a royal road through land disputes. The four defendants can not deliver land to the plaintiff to the land to take advantage of the contract. The repayment will be impossible for any reason, which will not be a party. The four defendants, which is a joint debtor, shall not be entitled to receive repayment under the Civil and Commercial Code. 372. The first paragraph, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the money from the four defendants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9473/2555.

           The plaintiff sued the plaintiff that the applicant to apply for electricity to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has installed a special unit measuring. / R - 6362 size 150 amperes 380 volts 3 to 4 lines at the commercial building No. 440/45 - 51 Ratchavithi Road, Phayathai Road, Phayathai, Bangkok. To calculate the electricity. On October 10, 2538, the defendant to transfer the right to use electricity by promising to pay electricity fees and electricity at the rate prescribed by the plaintiff until the defendant will have a written notice. Electricity to the plaintiff. Then in August 1999, the second defendant took possession of the premises and was the first consumer on the defendant. On June 29, 2001, the plaintiff found that employees of the plaintiff read the number of units used to power the machine. Measurement of the power unit during November 2000 to May 2001, the plaintiff made a calculation of the electricity bill, the two defendants less than the truth. Because in November 2000, the plaintiff changed the unit of measurement of the defendant's landlord LANDIS (LANDIS), the plaintiff checked the unit of electricity and calculated the electricity bill is 340,879.50 baht, the defendant also. Overdue payment of electricity at February 2002 to June 11, 2002, amounting to 86,767 baht, the plaintiff has taken the money paid by the two defendants and the money paid under the contract. Well, to be deducted from the amount due already. The debt of the two defendants are liable to pay 312,342.50 Baht with interest of 7.5 percent from March 1, 2003 totaling 319,915.73 baht. The plaintiff's complaint described the condition of the charges as well as details. And the request is clearly enforceable enough that the two defendants understand the charge. The plaintiff must describe the lawsuit that the second defendant used the actual fire in each month, because the fact that the plaintiff can be investigated in the class. The plaintiff sued not covered.

        The witness of the plaintiff, the three plaintiffs, which is an employee of the plaintiff, testified that on June 29, 2001, the plaintiff found that the plaintiff's employees have read the unit number read the unit of land use unit Landis (LANDIS) that the plaintiff brought. Changed to the new defendant during the period from November 2000 to May 2001, the plaintiff made a calculation of electricity charges for the period. Less than reality The plaintiff calculated the new electricity in the range of 427,646.50

          The two defendants did not refute or verify that the plaintiff's electricity bill recalculated and added to the two defendants is not correct. The evidence of the plaintiff is more reliable than the evidence of the two defendants. The fact is, I heard that. The plaintiff has the right to charge the electricity to the amount of 312,342.50 Baht, even though the recording of the unit was made by the plaintiff's own actions. Both defendants did not participate. The plaintiff was able to claim the electricity used by the two defendants in accordance with the plaintiff's regulation on the use of electricity and services. 1992. The electricity bills that the two defendants owe as legal debts. Both defendants will have to pay interest when defaulted.

         Before the plaintiff sued the defendant to pay the electricity bill 312,342.50 baht to the plaintiff by February 28, 2003, the defendant received a letter of demand on February 21, 2003, the defendants are both ignored. Both defendants were defaulted to pay interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from March 1, 2003 until the plaintiff's payment to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15235/2553.

          Although the transport of goods under the lawsuit, the seller or the insured agreed to hire the defendant to carry a general cargo. The terms of limitation of carrier liability for damage to or loss of cargo. The fact is that the defendant did not abandon the care of the goods in accordance with the wrongdoing. It is a serious negligence. The Air Cargo Agreement has a definite limitation of carrier liability of not more than US $ 100 per shipment. But the air transport contract is one contract of return. Will fall under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 373. Therefore, the limitation of liability of the carrier under the air transport contract. It is not enforceable in cases where the carrier makes a fraudulent or gross negligence. Such restrictions can not apply to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7355/2553.

        The defendant had entered into a compromise agreement with his son in the dispute over the inheritance of A. by agreeing to share many legacies and agreements to the defendant to pay debts to the bank and the debt. The fruit of which the plaintiff's debts as a creditor included in the agreement under the compromise agreement, in part to benefit the plaintiff, which is not. Become a contractor. It is a contract for the benefit of third parties under the Civil and Commercial Code 374, the plaintiff has the right to call the defendant to pay the debt to the plaintiff directly. Such a statement.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7618/2552.

         When the contract ends. The parties must return to their original position. The configuration of the work to be repaid. It is not a compensation or compensation. It is a way to get the contract back to its original status. The value of the work to be paid to each other. It must consider the value of the work of the plaintiff to the defendant in fact. The wage that will be paid in accordance with the work set out in the contract to break up. No more rules. The wages paid to the contract may be determined by the non-value of the work.

The plaintiff and the defendant agreed. Will use a certain amount. When not repay or pay properly. Penalty If it is too high. The court has the power to reduce the number of cases under Section 383

The highest liability for fees. The court has the power to discretion for any party to lose. Taking into account the justification and good faith in litigation.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4208/2552.

Penalties under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one shall be a penalty resulting from the contract parties to the same that the debtor will use. Some money is penalties when they do not pay or do not pay the debt. To be as prescribed in Section 379 to Section 381, but the case that the defendant, who is entitled to use groundwater from the plaintiff is liable to pay for groundwater. This is because the violator fails to comply with Ministerial Regulations No. 6 and No. 7, issued in accordance with the Groundwater Act 1977 is not a matter that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to impose advance damages in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, the court can not be reduced.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5941/2552.

Although the text in the memorandum of agreement deposit the land price will call for money. The plaintiff received from the company as a "deposit", but the content of the agreement and the relationship between the parties on the money. Allegedly a "deposit" under the provisions of Section 377 and Section 378 not because of the content of the agreement in Article 2 and Article 3, but the parties to negotiate in essence. And details The specified land transaction is completed within the specified time. Indicate the effect of the parties unable to reach an agreement within that time frame. Only if the plaintiff refund the deposit to the company only to find an agreement to confiscate or return the deposit. The deposit under this agreement is not the money provided by the Company to the plaintiff when the contract is signed as evidence that the contract has been made and it is guaranteed to comply with that contract. Section 377. In addition, the provisions in Clause 3.2 states that if the parties can not negotiate the agreement on the purchase of land within the specified time, the plaintiff agreed to return all deposits to the company. Any conditions This is an exception to the principle of deposit as Section 378 (1) to (3) requires that the return or confiscation. The fact that the plaintiff has returned all the deposits to the company and the fact that. Plaintiffs recognize income for business tax only for the sale of real estate. Choose a taxable practice by calculating the tax base at the time of registration. According to the Accounting Standard No. 26, it can not be considered that the plaintiff's income from the deposit to be taken. Specific business tax under Section 91/2 (6) of the Revenue Code

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4584/2552.

The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a contract to transfer the patent. It is required that the transferor is the four plaintiffs who must sell the technology. The recipient is the defendant. It is a reciprocal agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 369, the plaintiff has the obligation to transfer technology to the defendant. And the defendant is obliged to pay the four plaintiffs. So the four plaintiffs have been named as shareholders in the defendant company. And the defendant to pay off the plaintiff's share of the four unpaid debts to the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant sent the share certificates to the plaintiff. It shows that the defendant accepted the repayment of shares. When the four plaintiffs admitted that no technology transfer to the defendant. The four plaintiffs have not requested payment of the debt under Section 208, so it may not be considered defendant breach of contract. The plaintiff has no right to terminate the contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9753/2551.

Franchise agreement is an agreement that plaintiffs invest money into a family mart using. Trademark and service mark of the defendant. The plaintiff is a family mart operator and responsible for his employer as an employer. The plaintiff must transfer money from the sale of goods to the defendant and the defendant will pay dividends, monthly profit and retained earnings share to the plaintiff. Franchise agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is a return agreement under Section 369

The plaintiff's breach of contract to sell the proceeds of the sale to the defendant. The franchise agreement that the plaintiff made with the defendant is a reciprocal agreement. When the plaintiff did not pay the debt to the defendant. The plaintiff will not ask the defendant to send the store to the plaintiff's possession. When the defendant does not deliver the shop, the plaintiff will be cited as the reason for the termination of the contract and compensation for the defendant can not be the same.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1255/2551.

Even the second defendant will accept the transfer of tax cards in good faith and pay compensation. However, in the request for transfer of rights under the tax card, the defendant promised that if it appears that the claim of taxpayers of the transfer of rights caused by corruption and Damage to the plaintiff in any case, the defendant, the transferor agrees to plaintiff's liability without dispute. It is an agreement that is not a law, and not an agreement. Page is a message except the plaintiff is liable for negligence. The severity of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 373 and not contrary to public order or good morals under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150 is enforceable. The agreement is binding on the defendant. 2, when the liability of the defendant is a liability in the debt of the contract and the debt is not scheduled for the calendar date of the defendant, the two must be liable for interest when the default. Section 204, paragraph one, and Section 224, paragraph one, the plaintiff demanded that the second defendant compensation for the first 2 times. February 24, 2004, the compensation is 1,779,673.94 baht. The two-day August 14, 2547 to refund the additional compensation 307,017.61 baht, which demands the same amount of compensation as well as books and such demands. You may know that any of these documents are claims for compensation in accordance with the value of the tax card in this case. Two copies of the request form the return of the tax card or refund of the value of the card. Taxes and legal interest within 15 days from the date of the letter. According to the receipts in the country, documents 1, 18 and 19, the second defendant received the letter on demand on February 27, 2004 and August 19, 2004, which the plaintiff did not show that the plaintiff intended to. What is the repayment period? Both cases have doubts, so it must be interpreted in a way that is to the party. Will be subject to the debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 11, it must be considered that the plaintiff intended the defendant to pay the debt within 15 days from the date the defendant knew of the second call on the second day. On August 19, 2004, the defendant has defaulted, and the defendant has defaulted and must use interest from the next day is September 4, 2004, and when the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff by the debt of the contract. The Court then Whether the claim of the plaintiff is a good or not. Violation or not, it is no reason to raise the issue as the two defendants appeal because the decision does not change the outcome of the case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2675/2551.

After the registration of the divorce between the plaintiff and the House that the House with the land to build a house to plaintiffs 2 to 4, the three children are a compromise agreement and a contract for the benefit of outsiders, Section 850 and Section 374 of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has the right to call for repayment by the transfer of land disputes to the three children and the right to call. The law is not enforced by a compromise agreement. So it falls under the provisions of Section 193/30, 10 years from the date of the compromise agreement.

The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are outsiders who will benefit from the contract between the plaintiffs 1 and the third party claims of the third party, the law does not prescribe the age. In particular, it is 10 years under Section 193/30 and the rights of third parties will arise from the time the intention to the debtor. To take advantage of the contract under Section 374, paragraph 2, when the plaintiffs 2 to 4 expressed their intention to the debtor to take advantage of the contract by transferring land and houses. In the early 1991, plaintiffs 2 to 4 may apply for the transfer of land and houses under the contract from the time of the said intention, which counts to the date filed on April 9, 2542, not exceeding 10 year

The plaintiffs 2 to 4 have expressed their intention to the debtors under the contract for the benefit of outsiders, and may not change or suspend the rights of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 later under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 375 S. No right to raise the land dispute to the defendant plaintiffs 2 to 4 filed for the revocation of the transfer between the defendant and the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 451/2551.

The defendant rented a land dispute from the plaintiff on the area of ​​7 rai 2 jobs for the garden with a rental fee of 7,500 baht a year, the contract is one year each time by the plaintiff to the defendant for about 15 years, but the defendant has a duty. Land development dispute is agreed. This increases the burden on the defendant more from the lease. If the lease period is only 1 year, the defendant will not benefit the defendant invested in the land and lemon garden. When the lease term expires. The defendant agreed that the garden and buildings that the defendant built in the land dispute is the plaintiff's benefit to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has expressly agreed to consent to the defendant to lease the land dispute for a period of 30 years in return. The lease agreement is more than a lease agreement.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 151/2008.

With the m. He is the heir of the defendant to 7,000 baht each. Both parties agreed to raise the property of his own. The debt to the defendant, the heirs of A. as a contract. One return Can be used without the need for evidence in books.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 277/2551.

The person who has the right to terminate the contract must have the right to terminate the contract. By the provisions of the law. Not that the right to terminate the contract arbitrarily. When considering the contract to return the land. There is no message at all that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant has the right to terminate the agreement if the bank refuses to approve the credit. The defendant as the defendant. The defendant has no right to terminate the contract.

Agreement to return the land between the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the defendant must transfer the land 5 hectares to the company to build a school is a contract for the benefit of third parties under Section 374 of the law. It does not require the parties to identify themselves. Third party beneficiary is a person or entity specific at the time of contract. Only the third party beneficiaries have the right to repay the debt directly. From time to time, the intention of the debtor to take advantage of the contract. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the defendant would have to transfer the land to the company that will make the school Senate effective when the second plaintiff company has registered a limited company. And made a written notice to the defendant to divide and transfer the land back to the plaintiff. 2 According to the contract of intent to the debtor to take advantage of that contract, the plaintiff has the power to force the defendant to transfer the land under the contract will return. Land

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6137/2551.

The plaintiff and the defendant made a contract to build a house that has the message that if the plaintiff's construction is wrong from the plan. Defendant has the right to terminate the contract and not pay the arrears to the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff to pay the cost of work to the plaintiff to build a home. The third defendant to the plaintiff as compensation for the plaintiff did not pay the debt. Such expenses are a fine that the defendant is entitled to under the Code. Civil and Commercial Section 381

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6136/2551.

The lack of benefits is one of the damages due to breach of contract by the defendant. Claims of the plaintiff's lack of benefit to the defendant occurred since the defendant breached the plaintiff's prefer to claim interest at seven percent per annum of the original amount. The benefit to the defendant since the date of filing a day during the time the defendant made a mistake under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 224, paragraph one.

The compensation for the use of radio frequencies in accordance with the notification of the Ministry of Transport for the use of radio frequency to pay for the use of radio frequencies. Clause 6.3 is the money that the defendant promised to use to the plaintiff. Penalties when the defendant did not pay the debt under Section 379 if the excess of the court has the power to reduce the amount is reasonable under Section 383 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1888/2551.

Of course, a certain amount of time has a definite course. One time It also gives the lender the right to adjust interest rates at any time. When the borrower defaults, it is considered as damages or damages. Set aside before the debtor defaults, does not pay or does not pay the debt properly. Penalties under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 379 when the court found that the excess of the power is reduced.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1691/2551.

Penalty even if it is set in the contract. But the law does not force it to strictly adhere to that number. All of the creditors must understand the interests of creditors, not only on the basis of property.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6498/2551.

The plaintiff claimed that the two defendants breached the contract. Both the plaintiff to transfer the plots of land to the plaintiff and pay compensation to the plaintiff is 3,000,000 baht if the land can not be transferred to the plaintiff to pay damages to the plaintiff is 35,000,000 baht, the court set the issue. The damages of the plaintiff or not. This is not a penalty or a penalty to reduce the penalty. When 18 townhouses built in the land of the defendant, which the contract is to buy and sell the agreement that if the defendant forfeits the contract of the defendant's first sale without the price. An agreement that looks like a buyer. Promised to make other non-monetary payments to the seller under Section 382 when the plaintiff sued and forced the defendant to transfer 6 plots of land under the contract to buy and sell. If unable to transfer the defendant to pay damages under the contract, so the Court of First Instance reduced the penalty and the defendant to pay the construction of townhouses in the amount of 900,000 baht to the plaintiff. It is a non-issue of the case. The decision of the Court of First Instance is not like it.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6236/2551.

According to Village Housing Loan and Urban Loan Agreement If the borrower fails to repay the loan and interest according to the installment payment period. The borrower agrees to charge a default of 0.50 percent per day on outstanding loans until the balance is paid. The defendant agrees to the plaintiff's interest. If the defendant fails to pay the debt properly, the contract is considered as a fine, which if the court finds that it is too high, the power is reduced. Fair amount under Section 379 and Section 383, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10161/2551.

The plaintiff expressed his intention to resign from the job on the defendant on June 17, 2002, effective July 31, 2002 is intended to terminate the employment contract. The termination of employment contract for an indefinite period, the employer or employee. The intention to terminate the contract only one side without the other. One consent or approval It results in the date the plaintiff notified. And it can not be removed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 386, paragraph two. Therefore, the employment contract will be effective on July 31, 2545. Although the defendant will leave the plaintiff before the date of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not guilty, it would result in the plaintiff's damages only to the extent that the plaintiff was not paid until the date of the plaintiff. Will only leave. It is not a termination that will result in the defendant to pay a lump sum instead. Advance notice of compensation and damages for unfair dismissal to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8509/2551.

The sale of land and houses in the project. The defendant built a sample home for customers. The sample house is a component of the purchase decision. I believe that the two plaintiffs purchased because of the quality of construction. Even the way home construction is delivered to customers may not be the same as building a home. Some examples of how to change the way a bricklaying house is made. The use of finished materials. But the quality of construction in other parts should be similar to the sample house. And when the plaintiff found the defect is the right of the plaintiffs. Will the defendant modify. It is normal for people who want to buy a house to live. The quality is ready to live without having to fix it again after he has to live. It is the duty of the defendant to take action before transferring ownership. Even if the amendment will cause the defendant to incur additional expenses in accordance with the provisions. The plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to both plaintiffs the opportunity to inspect the house. To be delivered before the transfer of ownership as follows: When the defendant acknowledged that the defendant has not resolved the deficiencies of both plaintiffs as well as not fully repay their debts. The two defendants are not in a position to call the plaintiffs both transfer ownership of land and land under the contract. Both plaintiffs like to terminate the contract with the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6473/2551.

The defendant can not transfer the dispute to the plaintiff in accordance with the contract. And not to build utilities to meet the contract. Defendant is a contract that the plaintiff has the right to terminate the contract under Section 388 so when the right to terminate the contract when it is already used by the parties with the right to terminate the intention to the other. What is the intent to do? And when it comes to the act and the intent of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 149, 150 and 168. When the plaintiff's testimony that the end of 1998, the defendant failed to complete the construction. The plaintiff asked the defendant to pay back. But employees of the defendant claimed to have to consult the board before ignoring payments. The plaintiff returned to the plaintiff's testimony. After the due date in 1998, the plaintiff sought a refund. But the defendant did not return the plaintiff. The defendant failed to transfer ownership of the dispute to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the right to terminate the contract by expressing the intent to demand a refund to the defendant. It is considered in accordance with the above provisions. The plaintiff has terminated the contract before the defendant will be notified to the plaintiff to register. Transfer ownership The contract is canceled. Must be told by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 393 can not be heard that the plaintiff did not take the time to deliver the apartment is important.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1645/2551.

When the defendant exercised the right to terminate the contract to the plaintiff, it can be considered that the contract is terminated. Since the termination of the contract. When the contract is over. The parties must return to their original status under Section 391

When the defendant exercised the right to terminate the contract instead of forcing the plaintiff to comply with the contract. May force the plaintiff to pay a fine. The defendant is not entitled to deduct the fine for work overdue from the amount of the defendant. Also outstanding to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10452 - 10453/2008

The plaintiff and the four defendants jointly enter into a joint venture agreement and license. Jointly established the company is separate when the plaintiff is not a breach of contract. The four defendants can not terminate the contract but one. Even the termination of the company will be lawful. The termination of the joint venture agreement and the granting of contractual right are not preferable.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 277/2551.

The person who has the right to terminate the contract must have the right to terminate the contract. By the provisions of the law. Not that the right to terminate the contract arbitrarily. When considering the contract to return the land. There is no message at all that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant has the right to terminate the agreement if the bank refuses to approve the credit. The defendant as the defendant. The defendant has no right to terminate the contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 632/2551.

Even if the application for transfer of lease rights will specify. The application is not binding on the plaintiff until the proof of the lease and the evidence. New guarantee and approval to transfer leasehold rights. The circumstances that the plaintiff returned to check the defendant to pay a prepaid rent to the first defendant and b. The new hire purchase with the guarantor to sign in the lease contract and The contract guarantees and allow the car to disperse the car to the new hire. Including the rental payment from the next four to five and the fifth installment to show that the plaintiff and the defendant has agreed to terminate the lease by default, b. The new hire purchase car hire. The plaintiff The lease and the guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and 2 are binding. Both defendants are not liable under the lease and the plaintiff's guarantee.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6239/2551.

The defendant (the lessee) to terminate the contract to the plaintiff (the lessor) must comply with the provisions of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 387 to Section 389, ie, the plaintiff must be a default party can not deliver the space to the defendant. Take advantage The use of the area is not possible because of any reason. One of the fault of the plaintiff. Defendant will use the right to terminate the lease to the plaintiff. But when it does not appear that the plaintiff did not deliver the space to the defendant to live. In return, that is. After the defendant has a letter of termination to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has reached the defendant. Inform the defendant to continue to use the rental area and pay rent to the plaintiff. The defense of the defendant that the termination of the defendant's contract was wrong. It also confirmed the defendant to comply with the lease and pay the rent to the plaintiff. The defendant also did not pay the rent to the plaintiff within the time specified in the contract. Defendant is not the default, it must be warned by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 204, paragraph two, the plaintiff has the power to sue the defendant to pay rent under the lease to the plaintiff under Section 213 paragraph one. The plaintiff sued the defendant to pay the rent due without the right to terminate the contract. The plaintiff's argument is that the defendant did not agree to terminate the contract. The plaintiff sued this case does not terminate the contract and claim. The damage occurred, but not repayment of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4866/2550.

After the lease agreement, the defendant did not pay the lease payment time. The plaintiff accepted the lease without protest, indicating that the contract does not meet the deadline. Lease payment under the contract is material. If the plaintiff's lease to terminate the contract must be notified to the lease. To pay the rent owed by a reasonable period before the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 387, even if the defendant will default to pay the lease. When the plaintiff did not inform the defendant that payment of rent for a period of time. The plaintiff has no right to terminate the contract with the defendant. Payment of rent for a reasonable period. The plaintiff has no right to terminate the contract with the defendant that the plaintiff to hire a car rental. In the same month, the defendant had to pay the outstanding debt and the interest of the fine to the plaintiff. The plaintiff returned to the defendant to hire a defendant in accordance with such circumstances, indicating that the plaintiff granted the default of default to the defendant, the contract is not immediately terminated. Both the hire purchase and leasing parties still want to lease the contract is bound to continue to hire the contract is not the same.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6961/2550.

The plaintiff bought land and housing from the defendant paid the defendant to complete the contract on April 11, 2540, but the defendant did not put the land and built a home for the plaintiff to complete. Until 2002, the defendant can not pay the debt to the plaintiff under the contract. The plaintiff has the right to terminate the contract without a reasonable period for the defendant to pay the debt under Section 387.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6175/2550.

The plaintiff is in breach of contract for the defendant to defend the plaintiff because the plaintiff can not deliver the license plates and badges. Taxation for the defendant, the defendant 1, the defendant has the right to terminate the lease agreement with the plaintiff and claim damages from the plaintiff under Section 386, 387 and 391, paragraph four, but the defendant to the right to use. Say no Still occupying and using cars disputes continue. Contracts are not suspended. Even if the defendant did not pay the hire purchase from the 5th period onwards, it will be deemed that the defendant has failed to hire a contract. But the plaintiff took possession of the dispute over the car on March 21, 2000 by the defendant did not argue in accordance with the circumstances, the plaintiff and the defendant to voluntarily terminate the lease from that date. Even the plaintiff can not claim damages from the plaintiff's lack of car navigation. Disputes are issued to outsiders. By claiming that the defendant is a party to the lease. When the lease is terminated, the plaintiff has the right to claim damages. The benefit of the use of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391, paragraph three, the defendant must pay damages that are the benefits of using the dispute to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6314/2550.

When the plaintiff is working the second installment defect is not correct under the contract. And the plaintiff has been amended to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff ignored the amendment. The plaintiff is a contract breach. The plaintiff has no right to terminate the contract and claim compensation from the defendant. However The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is considered by default. Construction contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a contract of employment under Section 587 of the same contract is reciprocal. When the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant broke up, the plaintiff and the defendant must give the other party. One with a return to the status as it was originally under Section 391 paragraph one, but because the plaintiff has completed the second installment, the defendant can not return. As the former. In case of forced under Section 391, the third defendant must pay the construction cost in the second installment to the plaintiff. The defendant has no right to pay all wages. When the plaintiff's work is defective and the defendant has told the plaintiff to correct the defect. To follow the contract But the plaintiff did not. The defendant prefers to employ outsiders to correct such defects. The plaintiff must pay all expenses under Section 594 and the defendant has the right to deduct expenses from the wages of the second installment.

The plaintiff's work is defective because the defendant requested a change to expand the bedroom wider. Use wrong material from the plan. Heavy duty steel frame for bending. The defendant must be responsible for the defect as well. And when it appears that the defendant has not hired any person to correct the defect. The Court of First Instance determines the cost of hiring outsiders to fix defects as appropriate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5474/2550.

Before the plaintiff filed a notice of the mortgage to the first and second defendants by registered mail to receive the envelope addressed by the domicile appearing in the lawsuit, it appears that the postal staff did not indicate the problem on the front of the envelope that no. Recipient And issued a notice to the defendants 1 and 2 to receive mail at the post office. The postal worker found the home of the defendant's 1st and 2nd defendants but could not send the letter because no one signed the letter. The plaintiff announced the mortgage notice in the newspaper. It can be said that the plaintiff submitted a mortgage notice by law under Section 728.

Sale contract to reduce the amount of 2 plaintiff to pay interest from the defendant at the rate of 18 percent per annum when the bills that the defendant to sell and reduce the plaintiff can not be charged by the bill on the date of use. The pre-determined damages in the form of interest increased from the original discount rate set at 16 percent per year in the case of debtors default. The increased interest is considered to be a penalty under Section 379 of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 379 of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3213/2550.

Section 574 only. When the lease termination because the hire purchase default. The leasing party has the right to forfeit money received by the lessee and take possession. Rent only If the plaintiff has the right to pay the rent owed, then there is no reason for the law to just confiscate the money sent before the termination of the contract. The plaintiff has no right to demand that the defendant pay the lease payment before the termination of the contract can be called, but only the cost of property at the time of the first defendant to possession of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391, paragraph three.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1932/2550.

Penalty is the contract that the debtor provided to the creditors to use a certain amount of money. Adjustment when they do not pay or do not pay the debt properly. But according to the loan agreement, the mind is that. The borrower is willing to pay interest to the lender on a monthly basis at a rate of 7.5 percent per annum, with a term of 3 years from the date of the contract. For the remaining time the two defendants agree to pay the interest to the plaintiff at a new rate. According to the plaintiff's bank statement. The plaintiff may change more or lower than the interest rate prescribed above. The plaintiff does not need to notify the two defendants in advance. The two defendants also made a record that the loan agreement. Both defendants signed a loan agreement with a rate of 19% per annum, with the memorandum as part of the loan agreement. According to the contract, the first 3 years from the date of the contract. The plaintiff is entitled to interest at a fixed rate of only 7.5 percent per annum, the interest rate will be higher than it can not until the expiration of 3 years from the date of the loan agreement, and when the expiration of the three years, the plaintiff. The right to charge interest from both defendants at the rate of 19 percent per year or new interest rates announced by the plaintiff's bank, which may change the plaintiff. Or lower than the interest rate set above. The plaintiff does not need to notify the two defendants in advance. When considering the loan, it is seen that after a period of 3 years, the plaintiff has adjusted interest rates at the rate of 6.5 percent per annum and 6 percent per annum, without interest at the rate of 19 percent per annum. The plaintiff's benefit to the defendants, so the interest rate of 7.5 percent per annum in the initial period is good. And interest at the rate of 6.5 percent per annum and 6 percent per annum after 3 years from the date of the loan agreement is good. All of the debt that the plaintiff is entitled to all the contract. Without regard to whether the two defendants are the default or not. And the flowers under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three, later, the defendants have defaulted, not repay the debt on time. The plaintiff has adjusted the interest rate from 6 percent per annum to 13.5 percent per annum from October 17, 2004 onwards and even under the loan agreement states. If the borrower has defaulted, the lender will raise the interest rate higher than the interest rate, but interest since 17 October 2004 onwards. Plaintiffs claim from both defendants at the rate of 13.5 percent per annum, which is less than the rate of 19 percent per annum, which is the rate agreed in the loan agreement and the loan agreement. The plaintiff did not charge interest on the loan, but anyhow. The interest rate is 13.5% pa. If it is too high, the court will have the power to reduce the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one, the plaintiff charged interest on the two accounts under the loan. It is legal and legal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5819/2550.

When the leasing car is lost, the lease will be suspended from the date of the car lost under Section 567, the defendant does not have to hand over the lease car to the plaintiff. But when the lease agreement appears that if the car is lost. Tenants will pay for the car equivalent to the remaining rent. The rent must be paid immediately. The defendant has agreed to pay damages to the plaintiff in this case. The determination of the liability of the defendant that the first payment of debt is not penalties. If it is too high, the court would like to reduce it to a reasonable amount under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, first paragraph, the value of the lack of benefits. When the car is leased to cause the lease agreement to terminate and the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 979/2550.

The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 381, paragraph three. "If the creditor accepts the debt. "Penalty" means that the creditor must reserve the right to claim penalties only if the debtor agrees to pay the debt. The creditors only accept debts. Does not mean that the debtor is partially debt. The defendant to pay a debt by check, not a full payment, so even if the plaintiff did not announce the defendant's right to a penalty at the time of payment to the defendant, the plaintiff did not pay off the right to call for a penalty from the two defendants. The conditions stated in the application for a credit card. The plaintiff would like to call such a penalty from the two defendants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1884/2550.

Loan agreement 2 and 4, and the loan agreement is signed in the conclusion that in the first 3 years from the date of loan agreement. The plaintiff has the right to charge interest from the two defendants at a fixed rate in accordance with the loan record in the first year 3.5% per annum for the second year, 4.5% per annum and the third year at 5.5% per annum. After 3 years, then the right to raise interest rates. It must not exceed the legal maximum rate. But if the two defendants default on the debt. Whether it is within 3 years from the date of loan agreement or after. The plaintiff has the right to adjust interest rates higher, so the fixed interest rate in the first 3 years, interest after 3 years from the date of the loan agreement is good. Is a debt equipment that the plaintiff is entitled to all the contract without regard to whether the defendant was the default or not. And is the result of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three, but the interest rate of 14 percent per annum that the plaintiff demanded from the defendants both after the defendant was wrong to determine that the right to exercise. Loan agreement No. 4 that gives the plaintiff the right to raise interest rates higher if the defendant. Two defaults do not pay the interest, so this is a compensation for the parties. Advance when the debtor defaults. Which is a penalty under Section 379, if the excess. The court has the power to reduce it to a reasonable amount. Taking into account all the interests of the plaintiff in accordance with the law under Section 373 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 463/2550.

The loan agreement, Clause 1, paragraph two, is that the borrower agrees to pay the interest to the lender on a monthly basis for a loan at the rate of 19 percent per annum or at a new interest rate which the lender may change more or less. More than a fixed interest rate. The borrower agrees to pay interest to the lender at a new interest rate announced by the bank. This agreement is an agreement that the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the three defendants at the rate of 19 percent per year from the contract date. I have not even defaulted or breached the contract. Agreement on interest, which is the plaintiff's income under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three, although it appears that in practice, the plaintiff charged interest at the rate of 13 percent per annum and later on. Between the plaintiff's interest rates rise and fall several times. The last time the plaintiff adjusted interest rates increased from 7.25 percent per annum to 15 percent per year from December 31, 2001 onwards. It is the plaintiff to benefit the three defendants in addition to the contract. The interest rate is not only 19 percent per year, the agreement under Clause 1, paragraph two, it is not a charge in advance, which will be considered a fine under Section 379 and even if Article 3 If the borrower defaults, the borrower will increase the interest rate higher. The interest charged by the plaintiff at the rate of 15 percent per year is not the interest that the plaintiff increased because of the default under Clause 3 because the plaintiff did not charge more than the rate specified in the contract No. 1. Anyhow, the penalty that the court will have the power to reduce the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5848/2550.

Even loan agreement 2 specifies interest rate floating. The borrower allows the lender to change interest rates higher or lower at any time, not exceeding the maximum rate prescribed by law. The lender does not need to notify in advance, but contract No. 11 states that in case the borrower is in breach of contract. The borrower is willing to pay interest on the principal arrears of 19 percent per annum from the date of breach of contract, when it appears that the defendant did not appear to have pledged the plaintiff to pledge the plaintiff. The plaintiff has changed the interest rate under contract No. 2, but it appears that the plaintiff adjust interest rates from 16.25 percent per annum to 19 percent per year after the defendant defaulted on the debt to the plaintiff. The interest rate increases according to Article 11, which stipulates that the defendant in advance if the defendant defaulted on interest increased by more than 16.25 percent per annum, so it is a penalty under Section 379 if. Excess of court is reduced to a reasonable amount, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5639/2550.

Although the deposit is a guarantee of damage, but the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 378 has provided. If the deposit is not agreed otherwise, take a partial use of the debt. The deposit is paid in advance. Must be calculated as a tax base under Section 79 and 78 (1) (c)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1273/2550.

The defendant sued the court of Samutprakan. Then the couple made a compromise agreement. The defendant agrees to the heirs of the land pledged to contract with the defendant to sell to the defendant by the defendant's consent to pay the defendant 1,000,000 baht, so the defendant has no land transferred to the plaintiff. The contract is still trading. The transfer of land is impossible because one of the circumstances that the defendant must be responsible for the defendant must return the pledge to the plaintiff under Section 378 (3), so that the deposit received from the plaintiff. The amount of 2,450,000 Baht is a debt that can be determined by the amount of not less than 1,000,000 baht, the plaintiff sued the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8328/2550.

Promissory note for sale of promissory notes to the defendant as a guarantor to accept. The debtor is a separate contract from the promissory note issued to the plaintiff to the plaintiff. The defendant's liability as a guarantor of promissory notes for sale. Send out the goods It is not mandatory to follow the procedures of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 985, Section 941 to force the holder to bring a promissory note to be used to spend money on the due date.

According to the Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 90/60, paragraph two, the order approving the rehabilitation plan of the debtor does not change the liability. The person who is the partner of the debtor or the lender together with the debtor or the guarantor, so the application for rehabilitation of the company, which is a contract seller to reduce the promissory note for the delivery of goods to the plaintiff. Even later, the Central Bankruptcy Court ordered the company's rehabilitation. Impact on the liability of the defendant, who is the guarantor. The plaintiff did not take the debt under the contract to reduce the promissory note for the export of the company to submit a request for debt repayment, not to suspend the debt. The defendant is not released from liability under the guarantee. This case can not be adjusted under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 697.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3480/2550.

In the request for transfer of rights under the tax card, the two defendants promised that corruption cases in the application for compensation for taxes and damage to. The plaintiff in any case agree to plaintiff's liability in all respects, without any argument, it is the intent of the defendant to the plaintiff's claim to the tax card. If it appears that the claimant's tax returns are due to fraud and Damage to Joe in any case, the defendant agrees to plaintiff's liability without dispute. It is an agreement that does not contain any prohibited laws and is not a pre-written agreement. Except for the plaintiff to be liable for serious negligence of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 373 and not contrary to public order or morality of the people under Section 150 shall apply. When the second defendant brought tax cards to pay taxes instead of cash. Therefore, the liability under the contract must be returned to the plaintiff according to the value of the tax dispute. Because of the fraud in obtaining compensation for the defendant's claim 1, the claim of the plaintiff under the contract has no specific age. The age of 10 years under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 539/2550.

The defendant's claim that the contract guarantees the accused is a contract of guarantee. When not stamped, it is used as a testimony in civil lawsuit against the defendant. Even the defendant will not fight in the testimony. It is a problem of public order. The defendant raised the petition under the Civil Code Section 249 paragraph two.

The defendant's plaintiff's promise that if the defendant escaped and the court ordered the plaintiff's fine. The defendant is responsible for paying the penalty to the plaintiff. In case the defendant intended to liable directly to the plaintiff. It is not the defendant's commitment to the plaintiff to pay debts when the debt is not a debt is not guaranteed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 680, but it is a reciprocal agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is not in the nature of the instrument to pay duties under the stamp duty of Section 6 of the Revenue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5496/2550.

The third and fourth defendants agreed to buy land and buildings that defend the first and second mortgage to the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff's loan amount of 398,000 baht, which is equal to the amount of the defendant's first and second plaintiff's debt. Trust that the loan to pay the plaintiff to the defendant, the first and second defendants, the third and fourth defendants agree with the 1st and 2nd defendants that the third and fourth will pay the plaintiff, which is. Outsider And in accordance with the circumstances that the plaintiff has approved the third and fourth defendants 398,000 baht, which is equal to the amount of the defendant, the first and second plaintiff and the plaintiff also allowed the plaintiff to conduct the redemption of mortgages. The defendant 1 and 2, and the mortgage of the land and buildings from the third and fourth defendants, the plaintiff is intended to take advantage of the contract between the defendants 1 and 2 with the third defendant. And then the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 374, paragraph two, when the plaintiff has the intention to give the first and second defendants to take advantage of the contract and the third and fourth defendants have a loan agreement. money The mortgaged land and buildings to the plaintiff. It appears that the defendants 1 and 2 are involved in the defendant that the fourth plaintiff's money to be handed over to the defendant, the first and second defendants are not obliged to pay the debt to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5496/2549.

Plaintiff defendant divorce registered and made a record at the end of divorce registration. All assets are available in Chonburi and Chachoengsao. To be the plaintiff. Other liabilities to financial institutions in the two provinces that occurred before the divorce. The plaintiff agreed to pay all debts. Although the agreement is the property of husband and wife under Section 1532, but the defendant must register the transfer of property to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff must pay the debt instead of the defendant. It can be said that the plaintiff has a duty to treat each other. It is a reciprocal contract. When not specified. Defendant must transfer property to the plaintiff. Plaintiff to the defendant must comply with the agreement. The plaintiff has not paid or to repay the debt. Defendant is not entitled to transfer the property to the plaintiff under Section 369, the plaintiff will raise a single agreement to the benefit of one party to enforce the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3031/2548.

Section 386 of the Civil Code, the right to terminate the contract of the parties that may occur in two cases is the contract. Or from the provisions of the law. Applicable include all types of contracts including contracts. For Sale Contracts Even if the ownership of the property is transferred to the buyer by the result of the contract or not. However, as long as both parties have obligations to comply with the contract, then do not practice. It is a breach of contract. The other party has terminated the contract. When the contract does not specify the termination agreement. And according to the message in the contract, it does not appear that the parties wish not to terminate the contract in the case of any party fails to comply with the contract. Therefore, the right to terminate the contract of the parties must be in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 387. If one party fails to pay the debt The other party will set a reasonable period. Then notify the party to pay the debt within that time. If the party fails to pay the debt within the specified period. The other party will terminate the contract. This case when the defendant defaulted on default 1. The plaintiff has a written notice requesting the defendant to pay the outstanding debt within 15 days, the defendant has received the letter. Non-payment within the time prescribed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the legal right to terminate the contract to the defendant without regard to whether the ownership of the machinery to be transferred to the defendant 1 or not.

The effect of termination of the contract must be under Section 391, each party must return the other party to the position as it was. In case of refund, add interest from time to time. In the case of work done and allowed to use the property. To return with the money should be worth it. The exercise of the right to terminate the contract does not wound up the claim for damages, so the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to the defendant to the first defendant must deliver the machinery under the contract of sale to the plaintiff. And to reimburse the money spent on such machinery while they are in possession until delivery of the machine back to the plaintiff. Including compensation for depreciation of machinery. The plaintiff has to return the machinery and the interest paid to the plaintiff and the defendant has already paid interest from the date the plaintiff received the money. And because the parties do not have an agreement to set interest rates in the case of a refund. The interest is charged at 7.5 percent per annum from the date of receipt of the money under Section 7.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7282/2549.

Interest at the rate of 13.5 percent per year that the plaintiff claims from the defendant. According to the lawsuit, since the defendant borrowed and received money from the plaintiff. The defendant did not pay the debt to the plaintiff. Contract month For several consecutive installments, the plaintiff considered that the defendant breached the contract. And from the documents that the defendant defaulted from April 2002 onwards, and the plaintiff has adjusted interest rates from 8.11 to 13.5 percent since July 2001. The interest occurred after the defendant became a default. It is possible to use the rights under the loan agreement to the plaintiff to add. Higher interest rates if the defendant fails to pay the debt. This interest is the damages that the parties set in advance when the debtor is wrong. Unpaid leave Penalty under Section 379, which if exceeded, the court has the power to reduce the number of reasonable by the way. All of the plaintiff's lawfulness under Section 383 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7122/2549.

The word "deposit" in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 377 is provided on the contract date. Not the property provided on another day. Agreement to buy and sell the land, Clause 3 states that on the contract date, the plaintiff purchased a deposit of Baht 10,000, while the remaining amount of Baht 914,000 will be paid in monthly installments of 10 months. The contract is only 10,000 baht, and the plaintiff's payment to the three defendants, the other 10 for 170,000 baht, even if the contract is identified as part of. Deposit money It is not a deposit according to the meaning. But it is only the settlement of some land. When the plaintiff is in breach of contract and the three defendants to terminate the contract to the plaintiff. Agreed to buy and sell the land so it broke. The three defendants have the right to confiscate a deposit of 10,000 baht under Section 378 (2) The plaintiff paid the land. The three defendants must return the plaintiff to the status as it was under Section 391, but the plaintiff and the three defendants agreed to confiscate the money under the contract. Penalty as prescribed in Section 379, if the excess of the court can be reduced to a reasonable amount, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4246/2549.

The amount of the defendant's letter of guarantee to the plaintiff to the plaintiff to the contract as a guarantee of compliance. Not the money the company handed over to the plaintiff immediately when the contract. It is only a preliminary guarantee that the plaintiff will believe that the company will comply with the contract and if the company lapsed, the plaintiff will be compensated damages from the defendant, the commercial bank. The letter of guarantee. The amount of the contract is not a deposit to the plaintiff to the plaintiff in accordance with Section 377 and 378 Civil Code is not a pledge that the plaintiff will be confiscated immediately when the company lied to the contract, but will be part of the damage. Break contract And it's just an agreement that provides a way to enforce debt repayments if they exist. And the defendant as the guarantor. Liability company to pay the plaintiff under the guarantee agreement, only the liability of the company liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4651/2549.

Plaintiff's installment payment until the 12th payment is not paid from the 13th to 15th. Later, the 16th plaintiff paid all outstanding hire payments to the defendant. Defend the defendant without objection. No interest or penalties. The defendant did not take the contract that. If the lease payment arrears. Defendant has the right to terminate the contract and take possession of the car leasing is a matter if the defendant wishes to terminate the lease. Defendant must notify the plaintiff by the time to the plaintiff. Although the defendant has written to the plaintiff to pay the outstanding debt. The rest within 15 days, otherwise considered canceled. The plaintiff paid all the rent paid to pay the defendant. The defendant did not receive payment, claiming that the plaintiff paid less than the amount owed, which has interest. Vehicle tracking and air conditioning included. It does not appear promised or implied. The interest paid by the late payment or the plaintiff actually owed. The defendant is not entitled to call the plaintiff to repay other debts overdue. When the plaintiff to pay all outstanding debts to pay the defendant. But the defendant does not accept the payment of rent without cause to claim the law, so it is not considered that the plaintiff defaulted. The defendant has no right to terminate the contract with the plaintiff. Hire Purchase Agreement Plaintiffs prefer leasing to take advantage of leasing cars. Defendant must deliver the car back to the plaintiff. When the defendant does not pay the rent and not return the car to the plaintiff without cause to be claimed. Defendant is a contract violation. The defendant has no right to claim damages. Hire Purchase Agreement The plaintiff has the right to use leased cars. The plaintiff is obliged to pay the rent in return. While the defendant took the car back, the plaintiff owed the lease payment for 4 installments, according to the lease agreement, the defendant has the right to seize the car back in case the hire-purchase debt owed without terminating the contract. The defendant took the car back, indicating that the defendant did not allow the plaintiff to make any further damage to the plaintiff using the car. Even the plaintiff to pay the entire amount of rent to the office to put the plaintiff is the plaintiff has the right to call the defendant delivered the car to return to the contract only. The plaintiff has no right to claim the benefits of using the car from the date the defendant seized the car again.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2946/2549.

The contract is to buy and sell land and buildings that "Project under the contract will provide a project club. Kindergarten And the swimming pool to be a central place to serve. "It indicates what the defendant must do in addition to the construction of buildings in accordance with the building. According to brochures, it also depicts a club, project and swimming pool. The construction site is not in the commercial or business district. And the area of ​​land under the plaintiff's agreement with the defendant at only 67.50 square meters, but the contract price of up to 3,955,000 baht will clearly indicate the intention of the public to become a customer of the defendant to take advantage of the place. As such, the defendant will create a central place to provide services to customers of the project. The terms and conditions of the contract expressly.

The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a reciprocal agreement. The plaintiff did not dispute the delivery of land and buildings. Including the defendant to contact financial institutions to the plaintiff. It is only the plaintiff's intention to pay the debt of their duties, only the defendant will be raised as an excuse that the plaintiff does not hold a contract is not the plaintiff has a letter to the defendant to create. Project club Kindergarten And the pool is under contract. The contract was made for about 1 year, 8 months, the defendant has not yet constructed. It follows the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 369 when the defendant did not pay such compensation within a reasonable time, the defendant is a contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 776/2549.

Section 369 of the Act says that in the compensation agreement. One of the parties will not repay the debt until the other debt or debt payment .... It means that the repayment of the contract in return. The parties must be ready to repay both parties. If either party is not ready to repay the debt, the other party will not pay the debt. Land dispute was credited by the defendant's judgment, leading the Enforcement Officer to enforce the debt. From March 17, 1998, and the Enforcement Officer has a letter dated July 31, 1998, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff to receive the land title dispute because of the withdrawal. On April 10, 1998, the plaintiff's defendant registered the transfer of ownership. Land disputes are still seized by the Enforcement Officer is not ready to transfer to the plaintiff. Because the transfer of property that was seized after the seizure, it can not be used by the creditor according to the verdict or the Enforcement Officer under Section 305 (1) as the defendant's obligation to make the land dispute disputes. Foreclosed before being transferred and received payment from the plaintiff. If the land dispute is not out of the situation. Defendant may not demand that the plaintiff pay the price. Because the defendant is not in condition to repay the debt immediately. Defendant is not entitled to call the plaintiff to settle the price of land dispute to pay the plaintiff to repay the debt to the creditors. And the land confiscated, then transferred to the plaintiff.

The defendant was not ready to transfer the land dispute because the land was seized. The plaintiff has the right to refuse to pay the price. And the defendant is considered a breach of contract because the land dispute is not ready to transfer to the plaintiff because of the cause of the defendant. I do not have the right to confiscate the deposit placed by the plaintiff. And when the plaintiff has terminated the contract, the parties must return to their original position under Section 391 paragraph one, the defendant must return the deposit to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1687/2548.

The sale of commercial real estate or the profitable business subject to the specific business tax under Royal Decree No. 244 has a broader meaning than the word trading under Section 453 because it also includes the transfer of ownership transfer. Asset under various types of contracts, whether with compensation or not. The plaintiff made a return agreement to invest in the construction of commercial buildings in the area of ​​the property. Some land plots before the construction. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the plaintiff canceled the contract of joint construction of commercial buildings, the plaintiff then transferred to the land without compensation, it is considered a sale under Section 91/1 (4) income tax. The plaintiff's property is intended for commercial buildings. It is the sale of real estate that the seller has in the business. Selling commercial real estate or making a profit under Section 91/2 (6) of Royal Decree No. 244, Section 3 (5), the plaintiff must pay specific business tax.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 406/2548.

The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to enter into an agreement to buy and sell land and 3 commercial buildings, which, according to the agreement, will purchase land and commercial buildings to the plaintiff. Only one person is allowed to buy the land in order to own the land. Because there are different results, which must be agreed expressly. Defendant is obliged to divide the land into plots by the area of ​​the commercial building where the plaintiff will buy and transfer the ownership of each plot to the plaintiff. But when the registration date, the defendant did not divide the land ready to register the transfer. Ownership to the plaintiff. Even if the plaintiff did not go to the appointment and have enough money to pay the remaining price to the defendant or not, the plaintiff is not a defendant, the plaintiff will be forfeited by the plaintiff to pay all. Agreement in the contract. The contract is still binding for the plaintiff and the defendant pay back. When the plaintiff notified the defendant to register the transfer of land to the plaintiff at a later time, but the defendant did not go to the appointment. The defendant is not in breach of contract to pay the plaintiff. The deposit must be returned to the plaintiff under Section 378 (3), and is entitled to a penalty for non-payment of the defendant under Section 380.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1469/2548.

Dispute dispute has originally come. The plaintiff has entered into a contract to rent the townhouses and the land plots did not help with the construction of the plaintiff as follows: Although the plaintiff has paid for the sale, which is the seller of land disputes and the lease of land. The amount of 1,400,000 Baht or the contractor, who is the contractor to collect payment for construction and construction costs from the MPs and MPs to pay for construction, it is considered to be. The money paid to each other for the transfer of the leasehold rights of the disputed building from the person who has the right before themselves, from the MPA or from the MPA to the construction site only. And do not make the contract between the plaintiff and A. has a special nature than the lease of any ordinary.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 408/2548.

There is no agreement that the defendant will build the house when the plaintiff and Ms. Saree, who signed the contract to buy and sell and contract to buy and sell land and buildings. The defendant in the same project with the plaintiff just testified. The project will be completed by the end of 1997, so it is not enough to hold that the contract to buy and sell is scheduled to build a house to complete. The Court of Appeals considers the sale and purchase agreement, which states that the seller will register the transfer of ownership of the land together with the building to the buyer when the buyer has paid the down payment to the seller. The contract is a contract with a fixed period of time. Not with the opinion of the Supreme Court. When a contract is purchased, it is sold as a reciprocal contract. And the plaintiff paid the installment to the defendant. Defendant is responsible for building a home and delivery to the plaintiff under the contract. And even if the contract does not specify the time to complete the house. But it is not that the defendant will build the house at any time, but the satisfaction of the defendant. When the plaintiff paid the defendant to 220,300 baht, both have a written notice to the defendant to comply with the contract and pay the debt until the plaintiff has a letter to the defendant to the contract and pay the defendant to the final count. For 5 years, the defendants have not been able to complete the construction of this house. The plaintiff has the right to terminate the contract. The notice to the defendant within 15 days, otherwise return the money paid. With interest to the plaintiff from the time. In this case, it must be counted as a reasonable period.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8673/2547.

Loan agreement 4 stated clearly. "If the borrower fully repayes the loan to the lender. The lender agrees to register the transfer of ownership of land only to own ownership in land title deeds No. 265906 to the borrower on the date the borrower fully repayment. "The agreement is a conditional agreement expressly if. The defendant paid all the loan to the plaintiff in full. The plaintiff agreed to transfer the ownership of land as specified in the loan agreement to the defendant in return on the defendant to pay the debt. The debt between the plaintiff and the defendant is a debt that each party will pay back each other when the other party to pay debt or debt repayment. It is not only the obligation on the part of the parties to separate the repayments. Therefore, it must comply with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 369 is one party will not pay the debt until the other party to repay the debt or the debt. The plaintiff authorized the lawyer to require the defendant to pay the entire loan to the plaintiff. By not proposing that the plaintiff is required to pay the debt to repay the debt under Article 4 of the defendant. Defendant shall have the right to not repay the loan in accordance with Article 1. To the plaintiff until the plaintiff will repay the debt under the provisions of the law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1074/2546.

The plaintiff delivered rice to the defendant, the color is rice and then return the rice to the plaintiff by the plaintiff to compensate the defendant is broken rice and bran. It is a reciprocal agreement. Defendant is obliged to bring the amount of rice delivered from the plaintiff to the course of color is delivered to the plaintiff. Later, the Burmese rice factory fire, while in the mill no rice, but rice that the rice that the defendant must deliver to the plaintiff is a particular property, so the defendant can not deliver the rice to the defendant. The plaintiff because of fire that does not appear to be caused by any action. It is not considered that fire because of the circumstances that the defendant is responsible. The repayment of the defendant by the delivery of rice to the plaintiff would become impossible because the circumstances that the debtor is not responsible under Section 219 paragraph one paragraph.

In cases where the defendant defaulted on the delivery of rice, although the repayment will become impossible. It appears that the defendant will have to return the rice to the plaintiff must wait for the plaintiff's order to send the amount. When the plaintiff did not call the defendant delivered the rice to the plaintiff. It can not be considered that the defendant defaulted on the delivery of rice to the plaintiff, which will be liable under Section 217

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9241/2539.

The purpose of the debt is to buy and sell the dispute is the transfer of ownership of land by the amount of space to buy for the plaintiff and the payment of the amount of land agreed for the defendant when appearing from the date of transfer under the promise. The expropriation of the land and the land to be purchased will be in the expropriated area, which will result in the land being bought or sold being expropriated in whole or in part. The settlement of the contract is a problem in terms of the amount of land that the plaintiff will receive according to the purpose and the amount of land that the defendant intended to change is not. For purposes of the contract of sale and purchase, it shall be deemed that the repayment under the contract of sale to be sold on the dispute in this case becomes impossible due to any reason which would be punishable by any party. Steam is not under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 372 different parties do not have to pay each other to be able to hold that any one party is in breach of contract, but the plaintiff can not claim compensation for the defendant. Deposit of the defendant to the plaintiff 40,000,000 baht when the debt is not possible because of any one to blame for any one of the defendant must return to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4733/2539.

The repayment is impossible, meaning that the debtor can not repay the debt. But in the case of the defendant, it appears that other companies can carry the goods at the agreed amount. The possibility of loading and unloading of containers depends on the efficiency of each group of vessels when the defendant can not carry the cargo at the specified number. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the use of the posture of the defendant in accordance with the memorandum to try to reduce the congestion.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1818/2511.

The contract is intended to be impossible. Must be a contract that the contractor is not practical at all.

Defendant contractor plaintiff drilling groundwater. The terms set out in the contract that guarantees the quantity and quality of water for consumption for a period of four years are conditional upon fulfillment. Finding is impossible. The defendant can not drill ground well for the plaintiff to use up to 4 years under the contract, so it is not a case of debt default.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3702/2545.

The defendant has written to the defendant that the defendant wanted to pay 2,112,450 baht to the plaintiff, provided that the defendant will have to inspect the installation of glass and aluminum is completed. Then the representative of the defendant took the job of the plaintiff and paid the plaintiff to 360,000 baht, with a record within the company. The defendant acknowledged that the outstanding debt to the plaintiff is 1,752,450 baht. The defendant took the job of the plaintiff. Pay the plaintiff to some. And the internal memorandum acknowledges that the debt owed to the plaintiff. It is a response to the intent. The contract between W and the defendant. This contract is a contract for the benefit of a third party, the plaintiff. The defendant entered into an agreement to pay the plaintiff, which is a third party under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 374, the plaintiff has the right to call the defendant to pay the debt to the plaintiff. And the contract is not enforceable in writing or evidence in writing.

The defendant is not the contractor with the plaintiff to hire the plaintiff to install glass and aluminum, but the defendant is the debtor of the Ch. And R. Partnership still owed the price of land and buildings purchased. The debt of the real estate contract will be 10 years, which the defendant may lift up the seller. When the case is a contract for the benefit of a third party. Defendant has a contractual counterparty, the seller of land and buildings to the defendant, the defendant may raise the fight against the plaintiff because it is a contract that the defendant agreed to repay the plaintiff by the plaintiff. Section 376, but no law provides for the defendant to take the fight, but the contract of purchase and installation of the goods with the buyer of the real estate. Now up against the plaintiff, the defendant's third party contracts. This case is 10 years old, according to Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 780/2539.

The plaintiff leasing the car is a stakeholder in the car that has the right to take out the damage that may occur to the car when the plaintiff brought the car to join the passenger transport with the limited company for mutual benefit. To damage the third party by negligence, the plaintiff and the carrier must be jointly liable by the defendant, the liable recipient of the liability. To the third party on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has the right to demand that the defendant liable to use such money to the plaintiff, the conditions of the insurance policy that the insured must not agree to offer or promise to indemnify the person. Without the consent of the defendant is an agreement to prevent the insured to agree to indemnify or indemnify. The alternative to a third party in the event that the insured party is the only defendant to be lifted out, this condition was not shirk responsibility.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 489/2524.

The plaintiff as a hire-purchase car with the defendant, even if the lease payment is not exhausted. No car ownership. But it is a stake in the car that is leased to the insurance contract with the defendant.

Even the plaintiff to the defendant agreed to identify the owner of the car lease is a beneficiary of the insurance agreement, which is a contract to pay debts to third parties. But the company has not expressed the intention to take advantage of the insurance contract is not yet. The plaintiff will change the agreement as a beneficiary under the insurance contract itself. When the plaintiff has notified the defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff has the power to sue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2732/2519.

Defendant 1 (the lender) and the second defendant (mortgagee banks, land leases) have entered into an agreement to preserve the interests of the landlord from the defendant. Which may be the original lease and the defendant to transfer the mortgage to the defendant 2 or the land where the defendant will provide a new one when the defendant has a letter to the plaintiff to contact. The plaintiff expressed the wish that the land was leased to the defendant, the second defendant that the full payment will transfer the property. The plaintiff paid the hire purchase to the defendant until the second. Agreed that the defendant 1 and 2 as a contract to pay debts to third parties under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 374 of the plaintiff, a third party has expressed intention to the defendant to take advantage of. The defendant is bound to transfer the ownership of the dispute to the plaintiff. If the land is not sold, it is considered to be outside the purpose of the defendant Bank 2, but the defendant is not a lease contract with the plaintiff. I do not have to take penalties.

Posted in: