Section 686 loan is defaulted on. I like to call your creditor to guarantee repayment, but that
Section 687 does not require the guarantor to pay the debt before it's time to pay. Even if the debtor does not hold the interest of Initial conditions or end up next.
Section 688 on the creditor to guarantee repayment. The guarantor will be required to pay the debt before it. Unless the debtor is adjudged a bankrupt, then. Whether any debt is in royal territory.
Section 689 even if the debtor has to repay them in the act before it is submitted. If the guarantor to prove that the debtor has to pay the debt. And to force debtors to pay debts, it is not difficult to remember. Your creditors will be forced to repay money taken from the debtor's property before.
Section 690 of the debtor if the creditor has a property held as collateral gem. When a request is guaranteed. You will have to pay the creditors of the insured property as before.
Section 691 if the guarantor is liable with the debtor. You have no guarantee that the rights mentioned in Section 688 689 and 690.
Section 692 ceases to be a stumbling block to the debtor. Shall be punished by the guarantor.
Supreme Court in 8286/2550.
Article 1 specifies that the contract guarantees that the second defendant, which guarantees a defendant the plaintiff joined the company in accordance with application dated October 5, 2525 and Article 2 specifies that the second defendant to accept responsibility to pay compensation to the plaintiff in full. If during the first defendant to the plaintiff's work. If you commit an illegal act or damage to property of the plaintiff or Indebted to the plaintiff by the defendant, two of the guarantor's waiver of existing law in which the plaintiff claims. The damages from a defendant before a case where two defendants agree to be bound to pay the plaintiff. In case 2, a debt which was for work in the location specified in the application dated October 5, 2525, when considering the application, dated October 5, 2525 stating that the defendant is a job. the officer or the liability of the defendants, two are required to pay the plaintiff as guarantor of the defendant first must be the case that the defendant, a breach of contract labor to plaintiff or violated the work contract. employ Workers, the plaintiff in the position of staff person as defendant No. 2 in the guarantee agreement and a will, even under the guarantee clause 4 states that the defendant's second consent and agree that if the plaintiff moved to appoint a switch or remove the defendants one to work with. any of its affiliates or subsidiaries shall be deemed to guarantee this. Effective the same time. It means only that the defendant, two as a guarantor of the defendant at first will be liable to the plaintiff on the defendant to an action for damages to the plaintiff while the defendant is a work based on the plaintiff or a subsidiary of the plaintiff. Position a person. The guarantee only. When it appears that the year 2526 the plaintiff to the defendant that a move from the staff person to act like a salesperson. Duty on vehicle sales, including receipts and payments for goods and thereby increase the risk and liability of the defendant, two more than is specified in the contract of guarantee and 1, then the defendant is an approval. car sales by the rules and violated the method of distribution. I do get into debt to the plaintiff is responsible for sales positions. Managing the sales department. If the defendant is not an employment contract or violated the contract labor to work on. The plaintiff in the position of the two accused officers are not personally liable as a guarantor of the defendant against a plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 3830 - 3831/2550.
Although the contract specifies that If the person fails to pay the lease-purchase agreement for a period which immediately dissolved. Without prior notice. The owner shall forfeit the lease-purchase money paid is not delivering the property of their respective owners and lease back to the owner immediately. But when a plaintiff to pay the purchase does not meet the deadlines specified in the contract. The defendant accepted the installment is not upset. If the parties do not take the time to pay the lease contract is immaterial. The plaintiff fails to pay the first installment period from 35 to 9 at the defendant have to pay the plaintiff terminated the contract and keep in touch. Payment within 15 days if the expiration of such books would equate to an intent to terminate the contract. The plaintiff contacted the defendant within a specified period such books. And payment to the defendant is in 5th and then the defendant admitted in such a bill has 3 to show that the defendants accepted payments from the plaintiff that a condition in the loan contract and allow the plaintiff. The first occupant of the car. The defendant intends to continue to contract into effect. But check the fourth and fifth billing is not a plaintiff who fails to pay the lease for such period. If the defendant desires to terminate the contract, the plaintiff is a notification to the plaintiff must pay the first installment payable within a reasonable time before the Section 387 on the defendant to terminate the contract. Lease does not terminate the plaintiff was not a party to a breach of contract.
After a plaintiff who fails to pay the check to purchase the fourth and fifth defendants had taken the car. Car hire from the plaintiff that a plaintiff both know that. The defendant had taken the car back. The plaintiff, the two never argue against the car lease from the defendant or the plaintiff in a recently donated to the lawyer a letter asking the defendant to deliver the car back after a time lapse to five months in the act of listening to the plaintiff to an agreement. The defendant returned the car lease without objection. Assume that a plaintiff against the defendant voluntarily terminate the contract by default. The parties must return to the status quo of the existing Section 391 paragraph one, when the contract is terminated by reason other than termination of the contract is the result of any party. A breach of contract. The parties have no rights and obligations under the Agreement anymore. The defendant returned the car so it does not make that a plaintiff has been damaged from lack of use of car leasing, the plaintiff has no right to sue for a refund or the price of the car and claim it is. Absence of the defendant. The defendant had no right to sue to keep the car. The value of the purchase price to be paid by the hire-purchase agreement. Extinguished it. I break the lease after the date of the hire car had been recovered from the plaintiff that a plaintiff that a defendant must pay damages to the vehicle during the lease. Not all car hire with the return value of the third paragraph under Section 391 of the second defendant is proven guilty with the guarantors liable for damages, the plaintiff is a plaintiff with one.
Supreme Court to 17/2550.
1 to 3, the defendant entered into an agreement guaranteeing the performance of the MP was not jointly liable with her husband as MP accused the four defendants, three have consented to the defendant to plead guilty and a third agreement with the defendant, 3. . employed the plaintiff as the plaintiff's misappropriation of funds. And a letter to the debt that the plaintiff will pay the first installment on August 5, 2537 as the liability of the Sun's liability under the contract labor law, no matter the age, especially with the last 10 years. under Section 193/30 is scheduled to begin from the date of accident, fraud, misappropriation, on January 14, 2536, when Sun made the debt to the plaintiff to pay the money back to the plaintiff in the first installment of 200,000 baht. on August 5, 2537 the debt will result in the interruption time stopped long before they pass away, not counting in the statute under Section 193/14 (a) and Section 193. / 15 and age that we stumble into this would be harmful to the defendants, four of which are secured by the Section 692 case, so the conditions for liability under Section 193/35, the age of 2. Years later, when the Sun is the first payment to the plaintiff, on August 5, 2537 as the state debt. Because of the age, smooth stop, thus ending the day. And one count from the date of August 6, 2537, the plaintiff filed April 9, 2537 on the date of August 6, 2537, the date of the new age, not more than 10 years, so it does not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Supreme Court to 10306/2550.
Contractual guarantee of repayment tax defendant No. 3 to the contract with the Department of Revenue plaintiff if the defendant is a non-payment of taxes had 3 will use the money to pay to the plaintiff within 15 days after receipt by the defendant. 3 will use the money to pay the defendant one who would pay taxes without calling the defendant a need to settle before the case that the defendant No. 3, which guarantees their right to request that the defendant is a person. The debt repayment and force the plaintiff waived the right to remove debt from the assets of a defendant before the Section 688 and 689, which has resulted in the plaintiff claims that defendants 1 and 3. one complete payment by the defendant No. 1 and No. 3 continues to be liable to the plaintiff until the plaintiff has paid the entire three defendants must jointly liable with the debtor, the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 with the I's. . Civil and Commercial Code Section 691.
Supreme Court in 8215/2549.
The guarantee states that if the defendant is a non-payment of taxes on the plaintiff to the amount of tax that the defendant is a need to pay to the defendant at the second known case of the two will have to pay to the plaintiff within 15 days from the date of notification. Without calling the defendant a prior agreement to pay such a case the two defendants, who are guaranteed their right to request that the defendant is a debtor to pay first. Kathy and taking rights to the plaintiff to force a liquidation of the assets of the defendant at an earlier, according to Section 688 and 689 as a result, the plaintiff claims the defendant's first or second one. payable entirely by the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 are still liable to the plaintiff until the plaintiff has paid the entire second defendant was liable for the receivable to the defendant that a Section 691.
Supreme Court in 6087/2550.
To determine whether the agreement or contract is an agreement made under the Act, unfair, unfair terms of Article 4, paragraph or not. Need to consider the agreement as a result, business or profession or trade. The contract finished. I have never purchased or consumed. The other party is unreasonable, and in Section 4 shall require the agreement or the other party to perform or receive. Reply Post Reply burden than may be expected normally. The agreement may be considered an advantage to the other party. When a contract guarantees a defendant the second defendant is liable for a liability claim, without giving the defendant an obligation to which the second defendant is liable to the debtor in accordance with Section 291, which followed. Section 691 requires that the guarantor is liable with the debtor has no right under Section 688 to Section 689 and Section 690 of the Guarantor shall have no right to it. It is not a burden than the law. As a result, the defendant does not perform or be responsible for more than 2 Reply Post Reply will expect the usual tradition. Guarantee in any way. Assigned to the 2nd defendant was not liable under the law of unfair contract terms. Although this is not an appeal to raise it in the court admonish each other by a central, but as a problem. Act as unfair contract terms in relation with the public order. The Supreme Court has ruled that under the second paragraph of section 225 P.wi.p.. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, Section 31.
Supreme Court in 3932/2549.
Civil Procedure Code by Section 1 (3) counterclaim is a complaint against the Speaker shall comply with Section 172, paragraph two, that is, to show clearly the condition of the charges and requests. Both claims are based on such charges. The speaker argued that the plaintiff's legal rights and obligations of the two defendants, however, by Section 55 must be related enough to include the original complaint and pointed. Be determined together by the third paragraph of Section 177 and Section 179 paragraph.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, a hire-purchase agreement guarantees the accused the two defendants claimed that the defendant's counterclaim for a second installment payment is complete. When a defendant's death. Plaintiff's name to be registered as an heir of the defendant, who owned a car lease. The plaintiff claims that defendant's counterclaims, the counterclaims of the defendant for a finding that two defendants did not have the authority to second counterclaim The defendant's counterclaim, the two are not related to the original indictment. Be considered along with the original indictment. And to guarantee that the second defendant is liable to the debtor with a co-defendant. The result is that the plaintiff is entitled to a payment from a defendant or the defendant, the second one is completely in accordance with Section 291 and the second defendant could not be mentioned in the exercise. Section 688, 689 and 690 only to find that defendant's right to prosecute the two defendants, one does not.
Supreme Court in 7982/2547.
Plaintiff and defendant, a work by the defendant at the second agreement is between the defendant a written receipt for a message that the defendant is an admitted receiving money from customers, then do not bring money to the plaintiff and ask for payment. the amount of the agreement in part. The remainder will be paid on day one and will pay a certain amount. The third defendant is the guarantor of the debt, the defendant agreed to pay a debt to the plaintiff, the defendant is a plaintiff is bound to follow. Not a defendant at one with the plaintiffs agreed to a legal relationship between the new rich of the existing debts of the defendant to a suspension of the agreement between the defendant and a suspension of the agreement between the defendant and one against the plaintiff does not change the essence of the debt will be. The second defendant to escape liability as guarantor.
The liability of a defendant's liability under the contract labor law, no matter the age, especially with the 10 years under Section 193/30 of age, starting from early 2541 on. Corruption occurs where a defendant made to the plaintiff's debt on May 24, 2543, age, and they stumble into a time lapse before that age are not in accordance with Section 193 /. 14 (1) and Section 193/15 and stops at the age of the disruption this would be harmful to the defendant, two of which are guaranteed by
Supreme Court in 5242/2547.
The two lower courts ruled that the defendant is a debtor and a guarantor of the debtor, the two defendants jointly liable for repayment by the plaintiff sued. If both the defendant and the plaintiff fails to pay or pay less than the mortgage, the mortgaged property from the defendant does not have an obligation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff still has the right to force liquidation of the assets of the defendants took two completely so I have to mention that if you took the mortgage of the mortgaged property of a defendant who has not enough money to pay debts. The plaintiff is entitled to enforce payment of the other assets of the two other defendants did not.
Supreme Court to 786/2547.
Guarantee a loan or overdraft. Although not stated directly, but the amount of guarantee in the contract guarantees that. In the plaintiff allowed the defendant to a loan or overdraft agreement, dated January 21, 2528 amounted to 300,000 contracts, dated March 3, 2532 in the amount of 300,000 baht, and the agreement dated 27. June 2533 amounted to 90,000 baht, the Guarantor agree to guarantee obligations under the agreement unless the plaintiff would receive payment entirely. Shows that the guarantee is intended to guarantee the debt of the defendant a specific amount of the overdraft does not exceed 690,000 baht, the Guarantor agrees that until the plaintiff would be paid entirely by the joint liability for defendants. a contract means that the guarantor would be liable to the defendant to a waiver by the plaintiff demanded the payment taken from a defendant or the defendant's property is one that the plaintiff held as collateral before the Civil and Commercial Code Section 691 is not a commitment to the guarantor's liability is limited to the contractual guarantee of a loan or overdraft shall have the effect to the defendant, the third in as the guarantor is liable to the defendant to one of the settlement money. More than accounts in the amount not exceeding U.S. $ 690,000 with the interest payments only. The mortgage contract and the contract to the mortgage contract is only for the defendants 3 to provide collateral to the contract guarantees a defendant the third will be liable to the plaintiff in a sum not exceeding 690,000 baht, not a guarantee without limit.
Supreme Court to 435/2547.
Central Labour Court did not dismiss a defendant because it did not owe the plaintiff sued. The second defendant is not released from liability as guarantor under Section 686 if the debtor is in default on any Creditors prefer to be called to guarantee the liability, but in conjunction with section 691 if the guarantor is liable with the debtor. Guarantor has no right under section 688, 689 and 690 on the second defendant is the guarantor that the debtor is liable with the defendant's liability to the plaintiff must be 2 as the primary debtor. When an action against the plaintiff by the defendant to misappropriate misappropriation of goods of the plaintiff. And collect payment from customers, then do not deliver to the plaintiff. The second plaintiff or defendant is liable to reimburse the money plus interest to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 4356/2545.
The second defendant is the guarantor of the debtor Ehgamrdk. Despite the wrong account and did not allow a debtor to the full sample due to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 291, but acknowledging that a debtor's Section 691, which would be just right can not raise a defense under Section 688,689 and 690. up against the creditor. That is not a right guaranteed under the provisions of the guarantee in any way, even the two defendants will not be a descendant of the debtor Ehgamrdk. And the guarantee will be provided to guarantee that an obligation of the borrower to the lender was in when the borrower fails to pay the debt or the borrower died or debt suspension for any reason whatsoever, but the agreement guarantees that. does not include a waiver of prescription up against them. The second defendant is the guarantor has the right to raise the age of the battle.
Supreme Court in 8454/2544.
1 Court sentenced the defendant to pay plaintiff. If the defendant fails to pay the second payment of the defendant and the plaintiff fails to pay the debt. The plaintiff was asked to leave Cmbagcab. The two defendants did not pay it. The loan agreement gave the defendant a Certificate. The Court held as collateral. The defendant first has the assets to pay debts and the debt is not a hard case, 2 like to ask the court to revoke the seizure of assets of the defendant, the second by the plaintiff shall pay the property of the defendant. 1 Before the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 689, even if the plaintiff to pay the confiscation of property of the defendant enforcement Officer 2, no sales. If the assets of the defendant. An inadequate settlement. Plaintiffs must be taken to seize the assets of the defendant enforcement Officer 2 again. There is no reason to issue an order to suspend the execution of the second defendant's assets only.
Supreme Court in 6895/2543.
The two defendants plead guilty in a defendant's liability as guarantor of loans in loan guarantees. This means that even if the defendant No. 1 is due in this case, the two would be liable for the amount secured only when the defendant is a debt the plaintiff is more than the limit that guarantees the defendant that the two have jointly liable as a guarantor of the wrong. Accounts in credit guarantees. The guarantee does not see a message stating that if the defendant is a payment, how much would the defendants 2 to debt guarantees is reduced by the amount of debt that is paid to the defendant, the second will be Hearing that the plaintiff had an agreement with Defendant No. 2 to amend the contract is not guaranteed. Prohibited by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 94 (b).
Supreme Court in 8136 - 8139/2542.
Section 686 prescribes the creditors to demand the guarantee of payment from the time when the debtor has defaulted. When the employer is the primary debtor fails to pay the plaintiff's four. Plaintiffs, all four have the power to sue the defendant guarantor, the liability under section 686 even though the 688 and Section 689 is entitled to the guarantees set up a defense to the plaintiff's four to claim the debtor and the creditor before you call it. of the Guarantees. It does not mean that. The four plaintiffs filed a claim for a loan from the employer. Plaintiffs have no authority to sue to enforce against all four of the defendants. In addition, if the defendant wishes to make loans to employers from liability under the provisions of that law. The defendant would like to ask the employer to the Labour Court as the defendants. However, the defendant would not have done. The defendant is not eligible for Section 688 and Section 689 to refer to rejection of liability to the plaintiff, not four.
Supreme Court in 7028/2539.
The land was put to the court as security for the defendant was allowed to stay the enforcement of the law by his agreement to the court that the plaintiff and the defendant will not be losing money by paying the plaintiff's verdict. amount of debt she does not allow execution of securities that the petitioner has placed as collateral with the court as soon as the agreement with the land as security for a court order to stay the execution of the court. Supreme Court when the Supreme Court upholds the lower court and the defendant pay the plaintiff the court shall issue the petitioner Cmbagcab immediately, without filing a new claim under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 274 was not the case that agreement. payment of the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code Book 3 of 11 The guarantor is therefore not subject to Section 689 and 690 of the Civil and Commercial Code shall apply when a defendant fails to pay the debt, the Court must follow the conditions of her contract. The court allowed that claim in court that she took from the land as collateral to get a court order issued to the petitioner has The force.
Supreme Court in 1640/2530.
The agreement was a contract of guarantee. However, in agreement with the defendants to pay plaintiff three defendants on bail from a court, three defendants to comply with appointment times. The surrender of the defendant at a place that if the defendant 3 can not transmit the defendant at first because she is an escape, causing the plaintiff to the amount of how much the defendant, the three would reimburse the plaintiff were as follows. A reciprocal agreement between the normal force the defendant to the plaintiff, a third party has accused the three defendants to a payment is sent directly to the plaintiff. Yes, it is bound to find a settlement when a defendant fails to pay the debts which are no guarantees. So, against the defendant. 3 is not liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 689700, the provisions in the 11's guarantee will apply to this case can not
Supreme Court in 9156/2538.
2 and 3, the defendant entered into an overdraft with the petitioner by the Ministry of agreement by the debtor and the defendant plead guilty to the 2nd and 3rd. The land and building, the defendant No. 2 and No. 3. Ownership share as a loan guarantee under the overdraft with the defendant No. 2 and No. 3. Mutual right of ownership in property owned jointly mortgaged property is mortgaged to the petitioner as collateral for a loan under overdraft of the defendant by the defendant, 2 and 3, 2 and 3 as part of the debtor class. The second contract is a loan guarantee, and mortgage debt, which is the only device in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 724 does not grant the defendants 2 and 3, which was initially due to take recourse to remove them. , A mortgage and even before. The agreement by the two defendants plead guilty with the debtor and the third one, it is just as big. They are liable with the defendant, 2 and 3, I mean big. It has become the primary debtor, as defendants 2 and 3, with a Civil and Commercial Code, Section 693 granted the defendants 2 and 3, the recourse taken from. This is not a guarantee. The defendant, 2 and 3, and is not payable due to each one will have to offset each other under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 341, when the opposition has taken money from the sale of land and buildings of the defendant. 2 and 3 in the case of payment of 9,429,863 baht to the petitioner's creditors before a creditor, then the objector has no right to the amount of 3,143,287.66 baht to offset a part of. to. received from the auction.
Supreme Court to 980/2513.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 688, which guarantees the rights of the creditors demanding repayment of loans taken by them. Does not mean that if a creditor can not demand that the debtor pay the debt then would release the guarantor from liability. The creditor is entitled to claim or sue the guarantor of the liability when the debtor is in default. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 686, so even if the defendant guarantor is the plaintiff's claim for the repayment of loans before. The plaintiff filed a claim for the release of the debtor time to 6 years preceding the filing of defendant's claim. Assumes that the plaintiff did not exercise good faith. No authority to sue to enforce against the defendant of not.
If the secured creditor to enforce payment of the debt before the guarantor must prove that the debtor has to pay the debt. And to force debtors to pay debts, it is not difficult. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 689 on the defendant can not attest to prove. The defendant can not claim benefits under Section 689 of this.
Property held as collateral to creditors of the debtor's property was not property of the debtor. The defendant has no right under the guarantee. 690 to raise the defendant lean.
Supreme Court in 1536/2511.
The court verdict is required. When it appears that the two defendants are secured by property mortgage debt to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs also sued the mortgage on the defendant to two, which the court has sentenced the defendant at a cost to the plaintiff if the defendant is a non-payment is the defendant's two redeeming the mortgage and the amount of debt that the defendant first must be paid and, if applicable. mortgage sales, property mortgage, not enough pay, but the plaintiff detention of the defendant that a sale of the debt until the end as when a defendant is a non-paying defendants two of the mortgage as security for debts of the defendant is a need to redeem mortgaged. settlements of the Court to prevent their being forced to parry a mortgage. The two defendants did not pay the debt or paying off a mortgage. I was forced to auction the mortgaged property, mortgage, according to the verdict. The plaintiff is entitled to seize the mortgage to the defendant at the second auction will be claimed under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 688 689 690 was used as a guarantee of benefits they can not. Otherwise, the provisions of the mortgage, then it would be fruitless and that the mortgage debt as collateral to pay the other party.
Section 687 does not require the guarantor to pay the debt before it's time to pay. Even if the debtor does not hold the interest of Initial conditions or end up next.
Section 688 on the creditor to guarantee repayment. The guarantor will be required to pay the debt before it. Unless the debtor is adjudged a bankrupt, then. Whether any debt is in royal territory.
Section 689 even if the debtor has to repay them in the act before it is submitted. If the guarantor to prove that the debtor has to pay the debt. And to force debtors to pay debts, it is not difficult to remember. Your creditors will be forced to repay money taken from the debtor's property before.
Section 690 of the debtor if the creditor has a property held as collateral gem. When a request is guaranteed. You will have to pay the creditors of the insured property as before.
Section 691 if the guarantor is liable with the debtor. You have no guarantee that the rights mentioned in Section 688 689 and 690.
Section 692 ceases to be a stumbling block to the debtor. Shall be punished by the guarantor.
Supreme Court in 8286/2550.
Article 1 specifies that the contract guarantees that the second defendant, which guarantees a defendant the plaintiff joined the company in accordance with application dated October 5, 2525 and Article 2 specifies that the second defendant to accept responsibility to pay compensation to the plaintiff in full. If during the first defendant to the plaintiff's work. If you commit an illegal act or damage to property of the plaintiff or Indebted to the plaintiff by the defendant, two of the guarantor's waiver of existing law in which the plaintiff claims. The damages from a defendant before a case where two defendants agree to be bound to pay the plaintiff. In case 2, a debt which was for work in the location specified in the application dated October 5, 2525, when considering the application, dated October 5, 2525 stating that the defendant is a job. the officer or the liability of the defendants, two are required to pay the plaintiff as guarantor of the defendant first must be the case that the defendant, a breach of contract labor to plaintiff or violated the work contract. employ Workers, the plaintiff in the position of staff person as defendant No. 2 in the guarantee agreement and a will, even under the guarantee clause 4 states that the defendant's second consent and agree that if the plaintiff moved to appoint a switch or remove the defendants one to work with. any of its affiliates or subsidiaries shall be deemed to guarantee this. Effective the same time. It means only that the defendant, two as a guarantor of the defendant at first will be liable to the plaintiff on the defendant to an action for damages to the plaintiff while the defendant is a work based on the plaintiff or a subsidiary of the plaintiff. Position a person. The guarantee only. When it appears that the year 2526 the plaintiff to the defendant that a move from the staff person to act like a salesperson. Duty on vehicle sales, including receipts and payments for goods and thereby increase the risk and liability of the defendant, two more than is specified in the contract of guarantee and 1, then the defendant is an approval. car sales by the rules and violated the method of distribution. I do get into debt to the plaintiff is responsible for sales positions. Managing the sales department. If the defendant is not an employment contract or violated the contract labor to work on. The plaintiff in the position of the two accused officers are not personally liable as a guarantor of the defendant against a plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 3830 - 3831/2550.
Although the contract specifies that If the person fails to pay the lease-purchase agreement for a period which immediately dissolved. Without prior notice. The owner shall forfeit the lease-purchase money paid is not delivering the property of their respective owners and lease back to the owner immediately. But when a plaintiff to pay the purchase does not meet the deadlines specified in the contract. The defendant accepted the installment is not upset. If the parties do not take the time to pay the lease contract is immaterial. The plaintiff fails to pay the first installment period from 35 to 9 at the defendant have to pay the plaintiff terminated the contract and keep in touch. Payment within 15 days if the expiration of such books would equate to an intent to terminate the contract. The plaintiff contacted the defendant within a specified period such books. And payment to the defendant is in 5th and then the defendant admitted in such a bill has 3 to show that the defendants accepted payments from the plaintiff that a condition in the loan contract and allow the plaintiff. The first occupant of the car. The defendant intends to continue to contract into effect. But check the fourth and fifth billing is not a plaintiff who fails to pay the lease for such period. If the defendant desires to terminate the contract, the plaintiff is a notification to the plaintiff must pay the first installment payable within a reasonable time before the Section 387 on the defendant to terminate the contract. Lease does not terminate the plaintiff was not a party to a breach of contract.
After a plaintiff who fails to pay the check to purchase the fourth and fifth defendants had taken the car. Car hire from the plaintiff that a plaintiff both know that. The defendant had taken the car back. The plaintiff, the two never argue against the car lease from the defendant or the plaintiff in a recently donated to the lawyer a letter asking the defendant to deliver the car back after a time lapse to five months in the act of listening to the plaintiff to an agreement. The defendant returned the car lease without objection. Assume that a plaintiff against the defendant voluntarily terminate the contract by default. The parties must return to the status quo of the existing Section 391 paragraph one, when the contract is terminated by reason other than termination of the contract is the result of any party. A breach of contract. The parties have no rights and obligations under the Agreement anymore. The defendant returned the car so it does not make that a plaintiff has been damaged from lack of use of car leasing, the plaintiff has no right to sue for a refund or the price of the car and claim it is. Absence of the defendant. The defendant had no right to sue to keep the car. The value of the purchase price to be paid by the hire-purchase agreement. Extinguished it. I break the lease after the date of the hire car had been recovered from the plaintiff that a plaintiff that a defendant must pay damages to the vehicle during the lease. Not all car hire with the return value of the third paragraph under Section 391 of the second defendant is proven guilty with the guarantors liable for damages, the plaintiff is a plaintiff with one.
Supreme Court to 17/2550.
1 to 3, the defendant entered into an agreement guaranteeing the performance of the MP was not jointly liable with her husband as MP accused the four defendants, three have consented to the defendant to plead guilty and a third agreement with the defendant, 3. . employed the plaintiff as the plaintiff's misappropriation of funds. And a letter to the debt that the plaintiff will pay the first installment on August 5, 2537 as the liability of the Sun's liability under the contract labor law, no matter the age, especially with the last 10 years. under Section 193/30 is scheduled to begin from the date of accident, fraud, misappropriation, on January 14, 2536, when Sun made the debt to the plaintiff to pay the money back to the plaintiff in the first installment of 200,000 baht. on August 5, 2537 the debt will result in the interruption time stopped long before they pass away, not counting in the statute under Section 193/14 (a) and Section 193. / 15 and age that we stumble into this would be harmful to the defendants, four of which are secured by the Section 692 case, so the conditions for liability under Section 193/35, the age of 2. Years later, when the Sun is the first payment to the plaintiff, on August 5, 2537 as the state debt. Because of the age, smooth stop, thus ending the day. And one count from the date of August 6, 2537, the plaintiff filed April 9, 2537 on the date of August 6, 2537, the date of the new age, not more than 10 years, so it does not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Supreme Court to 10306/2550.
Contractual guarantee of repayment tax defendant No. 3 to the contract with the Department of Revenue plaintiff if the defendant is a non-payment of taxes had 3 will use the money to pay to the plaintiff within 15 days after receipt by the defendant. 3 will use the money to pay the defendant one who would pay taxes without calling the defendant a need to settle before the case that the defendant No. 3, which guarantees their right to request that the defendant is a person. The debt repayment and force the plaintiff waived the right to remove debt from the assets of a defendant before the Section 688 and 689, which has resulted in the plaintiff claims that defendants 1 and 3. one complete payment by the defendant No. 1 and No. 3 continues to be liable to the plaintiff until the plaintiff has paid the entire three defendants must jointly liable with the debtor, the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 with the I's. . Civil and Commercial Code Section 691.
Supreme Court in 8215/2549.
The guarantee states that if the defendant is a non-payment of taxes on the plaintiff to the amount of tax that the defendant is a need to pay to the defendant at the second known case of the two will have to pay to the plaintiff within 15 days from the date of notification. Without calling the defendant a prior agreement to pay such a case the two defendants, who are guaranteed their right to request that the defendant is a debtor to pay first. Kathy and taking rights to the plaintiff to force a liquidation of the assets of the defendant at an earlier, according to Section 688 and 689 as a result, the plaintiff claims the defendant's first or second one. payable entirely by the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 are still liable to the plaintiff until the plaintiff has paid the entire second defendant was liable for the receivable to the defendant that a Section 691.
Supreme Court in 6087/2550.
To determine whether the agreement or contract is an agreement made under the Act, unfair, unfair terms of Article 4, paragraph or not. Need to consider the agreement as a result, business or profession or trade. The contract finished. I have never purchased or consumed. The other party is unreasonable, and in Section 4 shall require the agreement or the other party to perform or receive. Reply Post Reply burden than may be expected normally. The agreement may be considered an advantage to the other party. When a contract guarantees a defendant the second defendant is liable for a liability claim, without giving the defendant an obligation to which the second defendant is liable to the debtor in accordance with Section 291, which followed. Section 691 requires that the guarantor is liable with the debtor has no right under Section 688 to Section 689 and Section 690 of the Guarantor shall have no right to it. It is not a burden than the law. As a result, the defendant does not perform or be responsible for more than 2 Reply Post Reply will expect the usual tradition. Guarantee in any way. Assigned to the 2nd defendant was not liable under the law of unfair contract terms. Although this is not an appeal to raise it in the court admonish each other by a central, but as a problem. Act as unfair contract terms in relation with the public order. The Supreme Court has ruled that under the second paragraph of section 225 P.wi.p.. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, Section 31.
Supreme Court in 3932/2549.
Civil Procedure Code by Section 1 (3) counterclaim is a complaint against the Speaker shall comply with Section 172, paragraph two, that is, to show clearly the condition of the charges and requests. Both claims are based on such charges. The speaker argued that the plaintiff's legal rights and obligations of the two defendants, however, by Section 55 must be related enough to include the original complaint and pointed. Be determined together by the third paragraph of Section 177 and Section 179 paragraph.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, a hire-purchase agreement guarantees the accused the two defendants claimed that the defendant's counterclaim for a second installment payment is complete. When a defendant's death. Plaintiff's name to be registered as an heir of the defendant, who owned a car lease. The plaintiff claims that defendant's counterclaims, the counterclaims of the defendant for a finding that two defendants did not have the authority to second counterclaim The defendant's counterclaim, the two are not related to the original indictment. Be considered along with the original indictment. And to guarantee that the second defendant is liable to the debtor with a co-defendant. The result is that the plaintiff is entitled to a payment from a defendant or the defendant, the second one is completely in accordance with Section 291 and the second defendant could not be mentioned in the exercise. Section 688, 689 and 690 only to find that defendant's right to prosecute the two defendants, one does not.
Supreme Court in 7982/2547.
Plaintiff and defendant, a work by the defendant at the second agreement is between the defendant a written receipt for a message that the defendant is an admitted receiving money from customers, then do not bring money to the plaintiff and ask for payment. the amount of the agreement in part. The remainder will be paid on day one and will pay a certain amount. The third defendant is the guarantor of the debt, the defendant agreed to pay a debt to the plaintiff, the defendant is a plaintiff is bound to follow. Not a defendant at one with the plaintiffs agreed to a legal relationship between the new rich of the existing debts of the defendant to a suspension of the agreement between the defendant and a suspension of the agreement between the defendant and one against the plaintiff does not change the essence of the debt will be. The second defendant to escape liability as guarantor.
The liability of a defendant's liability under the contract labor law, no matter the age, especially with the 10 years under Section 193/30 of age, starting from early 2541 on. Corruption occurs where a defendant made to the plaintiff's debt on May 24, 2543, age, and they stumble into a time lapse before that age are not in accordance with Section 193 /. 14 (1) and Section 193/15 and stops at the age of the disruption this would be harmful to the defendant, two of which are guaranteed by
Supreme Court in 5242/2547.
The two lower courts ruled that the defendant is a debtor and a guarantor of the debtor, the two defendants jointly liable for repayment by the plaintiff sued. If both the defendant and the plaintiff fails to pay or pay less than the mortgage, the mortgaged property from the defendant does not have an obligation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff still has the right to force liquidation of the assets of the defendants took two completely so I have to mention that if you took the mortgage of the mortgaged property of a defendant who has not enough money to pay debts. The plaintiff is entitled to enforce payment of the other assets of the two other defendants did not.
Supreme Court to 786/2547.
Guarantee a loan or overdraft. Although not stated directly, but the amount of guarantee in the contract guarantees that. In the plaintiff allowed the defendant to a loan or overdraft agreement, dated January 21, 2528 amounted to 300,000 contracts, dated March 3, 2532 in the amount of 300,000 baht, and the agreement dated 27. June 2533 amounted to 90,000 baht, the Guarantor agree to guarantee obligations under the agreement unless the plaintiff would receive payment entirely. Shows that the guarantee is intended to guarantee the debt of the defendant a specific amount of the overdraft does not exceed 690,000 baht, the Guarantor agrees that until the plaintiff would be paid entirely by the joint liability for defendants. a contract means that the guarantor would be liable to the defendant to a waiver by the plaintiff demanded the payment taken from a defendant or the defendant's property is one that the plaintiff held as collateral before the Civil and Commercial Code Section 691 is not a commitment to the guarantor's liability is limited to the contractual guarantee of a loan or overdraft shall have the effect to the defendant, the third in as the guarantor is liable to the defendant to one of the settlement money. More than accounts in the amount not exceeding U.S. $ 690,000 with the interest payments only. The mortgage contract and the contract to the mortgage contract is only for the defendants 3 to provide collateral to the contract guarantees a defendant the third will be liable to the plaintiff in a sum not exceeding 690,000 baht, not a guarantee without limit.
Supreme Court to 435/2547.
Central Labour Court did not dismiss a defendant because it did not owe the plaintiff sued. The second defendant is not released from liability as guarantor under Section 686 if the debtor is in default on any Creditors prefer to be called to guarantee the liability, but in conjunction with section 691 if the guarantor is liable with the debtor. Guarantor has no right under section 688, 689 and 690 on the second defendant is the guarantor that the debtor is liable with the defendant's liability to the plaintiff must be 2 as the primary debtor. When an action against the plaintiff by the defendant to misappropriate misappropriation of goods of the plaintiff. And collect payment from customers, then do not deliver to the plaintiff. The second plaintiff or defendant is liable to reimburse the money plus interest to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 4356/2545.
The second defendant is the guarantor of the debtor Ehgamrdk. Despite the wrong account and did not allow a debtor to the full sample due to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 291, but acknowledging that a debtor's Section 691, which would be just right can not raise a defense under Section 688,689 and 690. up against the creditor. That is not a right guaranteed under the provisions of the guarantee in any way, even the two defendants will not be a descendant of the debtor Ehgamrdk. And the guarantee will be provided to guarantee that an obligation of the borrower to the lender was in when the borrower fails to pay the debt or the borrower died or debt suspension for any reason whatsoever, but the agreement guarantees that. does not include a waiver of prescription up against them. The second defendant is the guarantor has the right to raise the age of the battle.
Supreme Court in 8454/2544.
1 Court sentenced the defendant to pay plaintiff. If the defendant fails to pay the second payment of the defendant and the plaintiff fails to pay the debt. The plaintiff was asked to leave Cmbagcab. The two defendants did not pay it. The loan agreement gave the defendant a Certificate. The Court held as collateral. The defendant first has the assets to pay debts and the debt is not a hard case, 2 like to ask the court to revoke the seizure of assets of the defendant, the second by the plaintiff shall pay the property of the defendant. 1 Before the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 689, even if the plaintiff to pay the confiscation of property of the defendant enforcement Officer 2, no sales. If the assets of the defendant. An inadequate settlement. Plaintiffs must be taken to seize the assets of the defendant enforcement Officer 2 again. There is no reason to issue an order to suspend the execution of the second defendant's assets only.
Supreme Court in 6895/2543.
The two defendants plead guilty in a defendant's liability as guarantor of loans in loan guarantees. This means that even if the defendant No. 1 is due in this case, the two would be liable for the amount secured only when the defendant is a debt the plaintiff is more than the limit that guarantees the defendant that the two have jointly liable as a guarantor of the wrong. Accounts in credit guarantees. The guarantee does not see a message stating that if the defendant is a payment, how much would the defendants 2 to debt guarantees is reduced by the amount of debt that is paid to the defendant, the second will be Hearing that the plaintiff had an agreement with Defendant No. 2 to amend the contract is not guaranteed. Prohibited by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 94 (b).
Supreme Court in 8136 - 8139/2542.
Section 686 prescribes the creditors to demand the guarantee of payment from the time when the debtor has defaulted. When the employer is the primary debtor fails to pay the plaintiff's four. Plaintiffs, all four have the power to sue the defendant guarantor, the liability under section 686 even though the 688 and Section 689 is entitled to the guarantees set up a defense to the plaintiff's four to claim the debtor and the creditor before you call it. of the Guarantees. It does not mean that. The four plaintiffs filed a claim for a loan from the employer. Plaintiffs have no authority to sue to enforce against all four of the defendants. In addition, if the defendant wishes to make loans to employers from liability under the provisions of that law. The defendant would like to ask the employer to the Labour Court as the defendants. However, the defendant would not have done. The defendant is not eligible for Section 688 and Section 689 to refer to rejection of liability to the plaintiff, not four.
Supreme Court in 7028/2539.
The land was put to the court as security for the defendant was allowed to stay the enforcement of the law by his agreement to the court that the plaintiff and the defendant will not be losing money by paying the plaintiff's verdict. amount of debt she does not allow execution of securities that the petitioner has placed as collateral with the court as soon as the agreement with the land as security for a court order to stay the execution of the court. Supreme Court when the Supreme Court upholds the lower court and the defendant pay the plaintiff the court shall issue the petitioner Cmbagcab immediately, without filing a new claim under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 274 was not the case that agreement. payment of the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code Book 3 of 11 The guarantor is therefore not subject to Section 689 and 690 of the Civil and Commercial Code shall apply when a defendant fails to pay the debt, the Court must follow the conditions of her contract. The court allowed that claim in court that she took from the land as collateral to get a court order issued to the petitioner has The force.
Supreme Court in 1640/2530.
The agreement was a contract of guarantee. However, in agreement with the defendants to pay plaintiff three defendants on bail from a court, three defendants to comply with appointment times. The surrender of the defendant at a place that if the defendant 3 can not transmit the defendant at first because she is an escape, causing the plaintiff to the amount of how much the defendant, the three would reimburse the plaintiff were as follows. A reciprocal agreement between the normal force the defendant to the plaintiff, a third party has accused the three defendants to a payment is sent directly to the plaintiff. Yes, it is bound to find a settlement when a defendant fails to pay the debts which are no guarantees. So, against the defendant. 3 is not liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 689700, the provisions in the 11's guarantee will apply to this case can not
Supreme Court in 9156/2538.
2 and 3, the defendant entered into an overdraft with the petitioner by the Ministry of agreement by the debtor and the defendant plead guilty to the 2nd and 3rd. The land and building, the defendant No. 2 and No. 3. Ownership share as a loan guarantee under the overdraft with the defendant No. 2 and No. 3. Mutual right of ownership in property owned jointly mortgaged property is mortgaged to the petitioner as collateral for a loan under overdraft of the defendant by the defendant, 2 and 3, 2 and 3 as part of the debtor class. The second contract is a loan guarantee, and mortgage debt, which is the only device in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 724 does not grant the defendants 2 and 3, which was initially due to take recourse to remove them. , A mortgage and even before. The agreement by the two defendants plead guilty with the debtor and the third one, it is just as big. They are liable with the defendant, 2 and 3, I mean big. It has become the primary debtor, as defendants 2 and 3, with a Civil and Commercial Code, Section 693 granted the defendants 2 and 3, the recourse taken from. This is not a guarantee. The defendant, 2 and 3, and is not payable due to each one will have to offset each other under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 341, when the opposition has taken money from the sale of land and buildings of the defendant. 2 and 3 in the case of payment of 9,429,863 baht to the petitioner's creditors before a creditor, then the objector has no right to the amount of 3,143,287.66 baht to offset a part of. to. received from the auction.
Supreme Court to 980/2513.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 688, which guarantees the rights of the creditors demanding repayment of loans taken by them. Does not mean that if a creditor can not demand that the debtor pay the debt then would release the guarantor from liability. The creditor is entitled to claim or sue the guarantor of the liability when the debtor is in default. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 686, so even if the defendant guarantor is the plaintiff's claim for the repayment of loans before. The plaintiff filed a claim for the release of the debtor time to 6 years preceding the filing of defendant's claim. Assumes that the plaintiff did not exercise good faith. No authority to sue to enforce against the defendant of not.
If the secured creditor to enforce payment of the debt before the guarantor must prove that the debtor has to pay the debt. And to force debtors to pay debts, it is not difficult. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 689 on the defendant can not attest to prove. The defendant can not claim benefits under Section 689 of this.
Property held as collateral to creditors of the debtor's property was not property of the debtor. The defendant has no right under the guarantee. 690 to raise the defendant lean.
Supreme Court in 1536/2511.
The court verdict is required. When it appears that the two defendants are secured by property mortgage debt to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs also sued the mortgage on the defendant to two, which the court has sentenced the defendant at a cost to the plaintiff if the defendant is a non-payment is the defendant's two redeeming the mortgage and the amount of debt that the defendant first must be paid and, if applicable. mortgage sales, property mortgage, not enough pay, but the plaintiff detention of the defendant that a sale of the debt until the end as when a defendant is a non-paying defendants two of the mortgage as security for debts of the defendant is a need to redeem mortgaged. settlements of the Court to prevent their being forced to parry a mortgage. The two defendants did not pay the debt or paying off a mortgage. I was forced to auction the mortgaged property, mortgage, according to the verdict. The plaintiff is entitled to seize the mortgage to the defendant at the second auction will be claimed under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 688 689 690 was used as a guarantee of benefits they can not. Otherwise, the provisions of the mortgage, then it would be fruitless and that the mortgage debt as collateral to pay the other party.
