Section 572 leasing contracts, which owns the property is rented out. And pledged to sell the property or whether the property is vested in the lessee. The terms of the rental cost is only this much time.
If no written contract. That void.
Section 573 tenant may terminate the contract at any time by delivering the property to be returned to their owners free of charge.
Section 574 of the second fails to spend time with each other or any provision of the agreement is an important part. Property owners will pay a termination. If so, those that have used it before. The forfeiture of property owners and property owners would love to return to occupy the property as well.
The breach of contract if it fails to spend the most time there. He said property owners would prefer to forfeit the money that has come back to occupy the property as before and the time spent at the expiration of the period to the next one.
Supreme Court in 8331/2551.
When it appears that the plaintiff's attorney. Does not specify a proxy delegate. The appointee has no binding authority over the plaintiff. As the appointee of the Agreement that the plaintiff will not sue the cost. Recovered from the defendant. Attorney offered the plaintiff's attorney with the defense. If there is no reason to believe that defendant. The plaintiff's attorney to act on behalf of agents within the scope of the result. Plaintiff, the defendant is liable to an attorney representing the plaintiffs in accordance with Section 822 and Section 821.
Contract requirements that When the defendant's breach of contract. Plaintiff to terminate the contract immediately. But the fact that the plaintiff did not terminate the contract. Must assume the plaintiff to recover the car hire. Do not break promises. The plaintiff, the defendant did not dispute the circumstances of the car by the plaintiffs on this. The defendant agreed to terminate the contract by default, since the defendant is liable only for the car. Lack of benefits arising from the use of property only. The plaintiff may claim other damages. It is not the case, the defendant terminated the contract because of breach of contract. The plaintiffs seek damages as a 15 percent annual interest rate, the plaintiff must serve as proof that the plaintiff is entitled to by virtue of any right. Otherwise, the court determined that the rate of 7.5 percent, according to Section 224.
Supreme Court in 6267/2551.
The court must follow the procedures specified in the verdict. When the Court of First Instance stated that the plaintiff delivered the defendant to return the vehicle back to the dispute can not be used instead. The plaintiff's obligations under the order indicated. When the court case in the defendant's request that the court placed the plaintiff. Defendant to pay for it. Was admitted to the court in the process of recovery and delivery vehicles. That the plaintiff pay the full verdict. And the contract will break it. However, the defendant accepted payment for the car, it is considered that the defendant had implicitly agreed to the transfer. Ownership of the vehicle to the plaintiff as a result of the settlement. Even if the vehicle is transferred by delivery. The car is a vehicle under control. Used to register and pay the tax before the 2522 Act, Section 6, the plaintiff can sue the car to the defendant disputes the plaintiff had registered the car ownership.
Supreme Court in 4279/2551.
Civil Code Procedure Section 4 (1) stipulates that "the indictment to be presented to the court that the defendant is domiciled in the district court. Or to the court that the case was in court that the defendant is not domiciled in India. Kingdom or not, "the plaint of the plaintiff, the court may be presented to the court in two or more. The court that the defendant is domiciled in the district court and court of the cases occurred. This is a legal order. When the office of the plaintiff where the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against two defendants to the Court in Saraburi. Agreement that the prosecution at the court. Therefore, contrary to the laws concerning public peace. Not in force.
Lease agreement that If the person fails to pay the lease-purchase agreement for a period which immediately dissolved. Without prior notice to the defendant that a default in payment of leasing and hire-purchase contract as soon as I get to go first. A car lease is lost. When the lease is terminated, then the plaintiff's rights under Section 574, paragraph one, the defendant has a duty to deliver the hire car back with the plaintiff under Section 391 paragraph one of the defendants. The first is the delivery vehicle leasing is vested in the plaintiff's recovery in default. Liable in damages if it later becomes impossible to repay debt under Section 217, the two defendants are liable under the contract specified. And shall have the duty to deliver the car to lease back the plaintiff. When I returned, it must be reimbursed the cost of the hire-purchase. Unless the defendant will either deliver the hire car back. However, because car leasing is lost. The plaintiff was called up for the lack of interest until the car disappeared. The plaintiff referred to the lack of benefit from using the car hire.
Supreme Court in 3745/2551.
The defendant, a hire car hire from the plaintiff as a consequence of the defendant to purchase a vehicle lease agreement with the district, and obligations of such companies to be licensed and registered vehicles. The lease is vested in the plaintiff's purchase and ownership of cars. Purchase of such a lease to the defendant that the plaintiff would not agree with what I do. In addition, plaintiff also had a relationship with a defendant as a lease with a lease-purchase agreement. The lease obligation is similar to a lease under Section 537 must be used to purchase or acquire interests in property leasing. Car leasing the property to be registered. The plaintiff as a vehicle leasing and hire purchase are listed on Cars for hire. The first defendant, as hire-purchase used cars that meet the condition of the vehicle and the unlawful transfer of a vehicle registered to the defendant a lease on a defendant to pay the full hire-purchase and leasing. As the plaintiff has a duty to hire a car registered and the registration of the lease. Hire-purchase contracts directly.
A. When you transfer a car lease to the plaintiff under the contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff district, the rights and obligations that must be registered and the registration of the companies I hire a car to the plaintiff. Impossible for the plaintiff's case in court I do not. When the plaintiff fails to provide for the registration and vehicle leasing and hire purchase payments for a defendant to pass through 4, the plaintiff is at fault contract. Even if a defendant does not pay the lease period from the 5th until the hire car back to the plaintiff. And hire-purchase agreement that if a defendant fails to pay any installment payment period shall be deemed a termination of the lease contract would be terminated immediately as a breach of contract because the defendant did not pay the lease. The plaintiffs have a contract with the defendant that the defendant is already on a contract not to exercise. The plaintiff had no right to terminate the contract with the defendant that the plaintiff has obtained a letter of termination of contract and the contract was thus secured. Terminate the contract without it.
When we returned to the car hire. When both sides are willing to use the same right to terminate the contract. The Court of Appeal ruled that The contract was terminated by default like it. Each party must provide the other party to return to the status quo as it was in accordance with Section 391 paragraph one, the plaintiff must refund the payment to the plaintiff and the defendant paid a total of four periods. The defendant, a car hire purchase payments for which the defendant is a defendant in a car attacked a price of 630,000 baht and 110,000 baht in cash and pay the registration fee for the registration and vehicle leasing company, I get. The vehicle is part of the subscription. When the plaintiff purchased an automobile that the defendant had to hire a car as part of the lease and the plaintiff received. The defendant also admitted taking money to purchase a car of 740,000 baht to the bill as a down payment of VAT and the receipt, the claimant must be refunded for registration fees and vehicle registration book or hire purchase to the defendant at one with the moment. same The defendant had used a hire car is considered the plaintiff's use of plaintiff's property. The first defendant to the plaintiff to restitution would be made by the worth of money in accordance with Section 391 paragraph three.
Supreme Court in 2763/2551.
Leasing contract hire property is regarded as one of the plaintiff's contract hire property. The landlord promised to sell the leased property to the defendant as a tenant when the rent due. Such agreements are not contracts, Civil and Commercial Code, Section 572.
Supreme Court in 1363/2551.
Case before the Court of First Instance has sentenced the defendant to the most. (The plaintiff in this case) returns the car to lease the defendant. (The plaintiff in this case) if the return is not liable for damages to the plaintiff to pay a certain amount. The defendant can not be used to secure the car hire เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดี it. Because the plaintiff intended to bring the car to escape. The defendant accepted payment for the car. The lack of interest. And damages from the plaintiff by the defendant, not denying or objection to the plaintiff to hire a car the night before. Therefore, finding an exercise in bad faith of the plaintiff by the defendant, not plaintiff. And demonstrate that the intent of the defendant. The defendants chose to settle in court by the plaintiff, instead of the delivery vehicle. A waiver of the right to force the plaintiff to deliver the car back under the ruling. The contract will then be dissolved. However, the defendant accepted payment for such cars. Implicitly held that The defendant agreed to transfer the vehicles to lease to the plaintiff. The vested rights of the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant has the duty to register and deliver the Registration Book car dispute to the plaintiff. When the defendant fails to contest the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff has sued.
Supreme Court in 6862/2550.
Section 572 is to hire purchase agreement, which "owns" the property to rent and pledged to sell the property or that it will provide. Vested property rights to the lessee by the condition that the lessee can use the money. This is the only one. Which authorized the contract must be "owned" but by the condition of the lease ownership of the property would be transferred to the leasing of the future can be transferred as soon as the contract is not "owner" means the ownership of the property. The contract includes the purchase and will be there. Ownership of the property in the future, like when.'ve Bought a tractor vehicle of the dispute. By the. Has power of attorney to transfer the registration of. Then it will change only by the registration authority. As authorized by the plaintiff. The name of the company that will transfer to the plaintiff at any time. The plaintiff has provided for. Lease disputes, and the tractor vehicle. The tractor units sold to the defendant disputes the plaintiff's case is regarded as the "owner" under Section 572 tractors, cars, parties have power purchase agreements have been made. The contract is not void. On the fact that for me. The contract with the plaintiff without the payment of the outstanding charges to pay to the plaintiff, but Back to tractor units sold to the defendant disputes. The defendant has no right to dispute the tractor units are forced to return to the plaintiff which The property owner has the right to pursue and retake the property of others under Section 1336.
Supreme Court in 3830 - 3831/2550.
Although the contract specifies that If the person fails to pay the lease-purchase agreement is terminated for any one period and without prior notice. The lease allows the confiscation of his own money to hire paid all of their respective owners. And allow for property owners to purchase all at once. 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 is a default in payment of installment from the No. 35 for the ninth period, the defendants have to pay to terminate the contract, the plaintiff, the two make contact for payment within 15 days overdue to take a book such. intention 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.
Supreme Court in 3213/2550.
Section 574 provided just that. When you terminate a lease because the lease defaulted on lease payments. The lease has been forfeited and the hire purchase and leasing it back into occupied property only. If the plaintiff has a right to demand payment of overdue payment, with no legal grounds to confiscate the money will be provided only at the early termination of contracts. The plaintiff has no claim to the defendant to pay the first installment due prior to the termination of the contract, but only to the property as long as a defendant in possession of property under Section 391, paragraph three.
Supreme Court in 4921/2549.
Defendants expressly provides that Plaintiffs and defendants have agreed to terminate the contract on September 19, 2540, and the receipt of evidence of defendant's car, which is a party to that claim. Car hire plaintiff was returned on September 19, 2540 so it must be that the lease termination on September 19, 2540, so the parties must return to its original position by the plaintiff is entitled to Section 391. property and compensation from the defendant. When considering the purchase a new car. And the vehicle used to carry water to the employment of the defendant. Should be set equal to the purchase of property and damages to the plaintiff that The defendant paid the plaintiff in a month.
Supreme Court in 2671/2550.
Despite the ruling in a case where the plaintiff sued the defendant to the plaintiff that the lease obligations, respectively. The plaintiff, the defendant must deliver the car the night before purchase. If recovery is not used instead. No one should have to commit to pay the plaintiff will have several options under Section 198 even though the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of debt that must be used instead if it is not. Car hire can be delivered back to the defendant and court fees in full. The defendant objected to without objection. Show that the defendant waived the right to legal liability in the first place. The defendant has a duty to carry out the transfer of rights to purchase and deliver your car at the car registration to the plaintiff. The defendant is not going to be a controversial operation, the plaintiff's rights under Section 55 Civil Code Procedure plaintiff has sued the defendants.
Supreme Court in 3807/2549.
The plaintiff sued the lack of a car lease, then after the contract termination. There is no provision of law, the statute in this particular case. Must be age 10 years when the lease terminated under Section 193/30 of May 30, 2541 the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on September 10, 2544 did not terminate the plaintiff.
Age 6 months, according to Section 563, it is rent property I used to claim the lack of benefit from using the car hire.
Hire-purchase and lease agreements are not at fault, then quit. The lease was forfeited and the defendant paid the plaintiff is already well down with the first paragraph of Section 574.
Supreme Court in 5900/2549.
Hire-purchase agreement from the plaintiff and defendant signed a lease for a car in advance to get the car. The fact that a defendant is assigned two to a car lease from the plaintiff. Is not an offer to contract hire. It does not have an attorney of the defendant.
Supreme Court in 5379/2549.
Captive leasing new vehicles are not registered. Act of plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant had registered the car lease payments to the plaintiff for the plaintiff to proceed to registration. Held that the plaintiff and defendant have agreed that the plaintiff has a registered car hire. After 9 months, the plaintiff has not contracted to perform the registration. The plaintiff is at fault. Deliveries by truck are not suitable to be utilized. The defendant shall have the right to terminate the contract.
Supreme Court in 4819/2549.
Hire-purchase agreement on that. The stolen car to purchase. Defendant to purchase two ways to receive compensation from the plaintiff's tenant, and insurance companies. Which exceed the damages that the defendant received. When the plaintiff and the defendant is in charge of the premiums for beneficiaries would not be a burden on the plaintiff to the defendant is willing to pay for car insurance. And the defendant had the intention to seek compensation from insurance companies. The insurance company approved the payment to the defendant. The defendant paid the plaintiff, after leasing the remainder of the hire car stolen to the exercise of bad faith. Must refund the payment to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court to 142/2549.
Defendant that a contract hire car from the plaintiff by the defendant, 2 and 3 as the guarantor of the debtor's wrong. The defendant, a breach of contract hire. Plaintiff's contract and seized car auctions sell for less money than a night out hire-purchase agreement. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and No. 2 have made an agreement to pay compensation in the amount of 284,007 baht Fasting reduces the damage to just 170,000 and the amount to be deferred and the time payment is made, as well as the interest rates up. the agreement and the amount of damages under the contract. The agreement is the case, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and No. 2 in the settlement of a contract to complete a waiver and refused to do. Such an agreement is a compromise agreement. The debt is not a book. Result in the hire-purchase debt settlement and debt caused by the compromise agreement.
Supreme Court in 1496/2548.
Car hire plaintiff to terminate the contract by the defendant fails to pay the first installment. The termination of the lease. The plaintiff has no right to demand payment of overdue charges. But the damage was due to terminate in accordance with Section 391 paragraph three, paragraph four, and in this case, Article 574, paragraph one, provided that those funds can be used prior to confiscate the property of their respective owners. And property owners like to take back possession of the property for lease only. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a lease specifying that Even in the future to terminate the contract. Hire-purchase agreement to pay the arrears in full before the termination of the contract to the owner until the owner returned the car. Or terminate the contract. The agreement differs from the provisions of that law. But not with the laws concerning public order, shall have the same effect. Section 151 does not void the contract and the liability for damage due to failure to pay in advance. The characteristics of a penalty under section 379.
Supreme Court in 8055/2548.
The lease payments that the plaintiff did not accept the payment by the due time, that the lease did not take the time to pay the lease is immaterial. When the defendant's rights under the lease and transfer of the lease, without objection. Be bound by the wishes of the parties did not take the time to pay the purchase is significant as well. When a termination notice to the defendant pay the plaintiff within a reasonable time before the purchase. When listening to the fact that the defendant owed the plaintiff to hire a third installment-purchase payments for the defendants did not accept the claim that due to 9, it is not paid without legal grounds to claim it. The defendant is the breach of contract. The plaintiff did not pay the lease within the period of notice of termination is also considered that the plaintiff is not in default.
Supreme Court in 8011/2548.
A written contract is not void under Section 572, paragraph two, the owner of the leasing and hire-purchase contract must be signed in by both parties. Contract to be valid under the law. Hire purchase agreements and contracts relating to the contract made with each other and the parties agreed to a contract after the contract is part of the contract, all is indeed a contract, so when the contract signed by both parties in the contract, even if only just. I have a contract that is perfectly legal. When the plaintiff is the owner of the property to the defendant a lease and the lease has been signed by both parties in a letter to the end of the lease. Contract would be perfectly legal. Yes, that is to be signed by both parties at the end of the lease with no visa. Contract is not void.
Supreme Court in 2781/2548.
HMS Partnership has paid the lease to the petitioner, then every year. The payment delay is not defined. But she would get a lease until all installments under the contract. Without termination. The payment schedule is not as significant. Car ownership in the leasing of the medium was immediately transferred to the Partnership under Section 572 R. and hire-purchase clause 3 without first registering the transfer under Article 9 of the lease to the petitioner's interest. payment of overdue bills and expenses to collect them. She would have to claim against R. It is unlikely that the Partnership will be entitled to claim interest under the lease or not. The agreement is not a condition that will not give you ownership of the car in the middle of a vested right to R. Barker Partnership will also be named as the owner of the vehicle by registered letter. She would not do that. There is no right to return the car.
Supreme Court to 356/2548.
When the lease is terminated. Defendant has forfeited the lease, the defendant paid an early termination of contracts. And possession of the car hire only. No claim for payment of the arrears in accordance with Section 574.
Hire-purchase agreement, which stipulates that "The future promises to be even possible to break up. Hire purchase agreement to pay the rent owed to the owner in full before the termination date of the owner of the car overnight. Or terminate the contract "is the liability of the defendant that a no pre-payment. It is a penalty. The court may determine the compensation payable is equal to the purchase or if it exceeds the court likes to be reduced by an amount sufficient to Act Section 383, first paragraph.
Supreme Court in 8880/2547.
Hire purchase agreements and contracts are not guaranteed stamp duty or stamp duty tax on the income tax section 118 stipulates that the instrument I do not stamp must be original or a copy of that document as evidence that a defendant in a civil case does not even have to miss an appointment. shall make appointments and lack of consideration. The plaintiff shall serve as proof that the defendant entered into a lease. When the lease could not hear the evidence. Court can not hear the defendant made a contract with the plaintiff. And even to the second defendant that the defendant made a contract with the second defendant as a guarantor of truth. The testimony of these two defendants would have the effect of a defendant when the defendant is a primary debtor. As a result, the defendant's second trial as guaranteed by
Supreme Court in 4962/2546.
The plaintiff returned the vehicle to purchase is a contract hire one. Without termination. As in any way.
Supreme Court in 5861/2545.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 574 provided just that. When you terminate a lease because the lease defaulted on lease payments. The lease has been forfeited and the hire purchase and leasing it back into occupied property only. The plaintiff to the defendant a lease or lease-purchase payment, all the while the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the car. There are overlapping claims. Inconsistent with the provisions of that law. Plaintiffs claim that defendants have no right to a lease payment due before the termination of a contract. It also has the property over time, the defendant occupied a property under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391, paragraph three and one against the other defendants liable for damages arising from the use of the property lawfully.
Supreme Court in 2630/2545.
Termination of contract law, not forced to denounce the book. If the lease any act which shows that people do not want to take advantage of leasing out property to lease anymore. It held that the termination of the lease by it then. The plaintiff to hire a car lease it back to the termination of the lease.
If no written contract. That void.
Section 573 tenant may terminate the contract at any time by delivering the property to be returned to their owners free of charge.
Section 574 of the second fails to spend time with each other or any provision of the agreement is an important part. Property owners will pay a termination. If so, those that have used it before. The forfeiture of property owners and property owners would love to return to occupy the property as well.
The breach of contract if it fails to spend the most time there. He said property owners would prefer to forfeit the money that has come back to occupy the property as before and the time spent at the expiration of the period to the next one.
Supreme Court in 8331/2551.
When it appears that the plaintiff's attorney. Does not specify a proxy delegate. The appointee has no binding authority over the plaintiff. As the appointee of the Agreement that the plaintiff will not sue the cost. Recovered from the defendant. Attorney offered the plaintiff's attorney with the defense. If there is no reason to believe that defendant. The plaintiff's attorney to act on behalf of agents within the scope of the result. Plaintiff, the defendant is liable to an attorney representing the plaintiffs in accordance with Section 822 and Section 821.
Contract requirements that When the defendant's breach of contract. Plaintiff to terminate the contract immediately. But the fact that the plaintiff did not terminate the contract. Must assume the plaintiff to recover the car hire. Do not break promises. The plaintiff, the defendant did not dispute the circumstances of the car by the plaintiffs on this. The defendant agreed to terminate the contract by default, since the defendant is liable only for the car. Lack of benefits arising from the use of property only. The plaintiff may claim other damages. It is not the case, the defendant terminated the contract because of breach of contract. The plaintiffs seek damages as a 15 percent annual interest rate, the plaintiff must serve as proof that the plaintiff is entitled to by virtue of any right. Otherwise, the court determined that the rate of 7.5 percent, according to Section 224.
Supreme Court in 6267/2551.
The court must follow the procedures specified in the verdict. When the Court of First Instance stated that the plaintiff delivered the defendant to return the vehicle back to the dispute can not be used instead. The plaintiff's obligations under the order indicated. When the court case in the defendant's request that the court placed the plaintiff. Defendant to pay for it. Was admitted to the court in the process of recovery and delivery vehicles. That the plaintiff pay the full verdict. And the contract will break it. However, the defendant accepted payment for the car, it is considered that the defendant had implicitly agreed to the transfer. Ownership of the vehicle to the plaintiff as a result of the settlement. Even if the vehicle is transferred by delivery. The car is a vehicle under control. Used to register and pay the tax before the 2522 Act, Section 6, the plaintiff can sue the car to the defendant disputes the plaintiff had registered the car ownership.
Supreme Court in 4279/2551.
Civil Code Procedure Section 4 (1) stipulates that "the indictment to be presented to the court that the defendant is domiciled in the district court. Or to the court that the case was in court that the defendant is not domiciled in India. Kingdom or not, "the plaint of the plaintiff, the court may be presented to the court in two or more. The court that the defendant is domiciled in the district court and court of the cases occurred. This is a legal order. When the office of the plaintiff where the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against two defendants to the Court in Saraburi. Agreement that the prosecution at the court. Therefore, contrary to the laws concerning public peace. Not in force.
Lease agreement that If the person fails to pay the lease-purchase agreement for a period which immediately dissolved. Without prior notice to the defendant that a default in payment of leasing and hire-purchase contract as soon as I get to go first. A car lease is lost. When the lease is terminated, then the plaintiff's rights under Section 574, paragraph one, the defendant has a duty to deliver the hire car back with the plaintiff under Section 391 paragraph one of the defendants. The first is the delivery vehicle leasing is vested in the plaintiff's recovery in default. Liable in damages if it later becomes impossible to repay debt under Section 217, the two defendants are liable under the contract specified. And shall have the duty to deliver the car to lease back the plaintiff. When I returned, it must be reimbursed the cost of the hire-purchase. Unless the defendant will either deliver the hire car back. However, because car leasing is lost. The plaintiff was called up for the lack of interest until the car disappeared. The plaintiff referred to the lack of benefit from using the car hire.
Supreme Court in 3745/2551.
The defendant, a hire car hire from the plaintiff as a consequence of the defendant to purchase a vehicle lease agreement with the district, and obligations of such companies to be licensed and registered vehicles. The lease is vested in the plaintiff's purchase and ownership of cars. Purchase of such a lease to the defendant that the plaintiff would not agree with what I do. In addition, plaintiff also had a relationship with a defendant as a lease with a lease-purchase agreement. The lease obligation is similar to a lease under Section 537 must be used to purchase or acquire interests in property leasing. Car leasing the property to be registered. The plaintiff as a vehicle leasing and hire purchase are listed on Cars for hire. The first defendant, as hire-purchase used cars that meet the condition of the vehicle and the unlawful transfer of a vehicle registered to the defendant a lease on a defendant to pay the full hire-purchase and leasing. As the plaintiff has a duty to hire a car registered and the registration of the lease. Hire-purchase contracts directly.
A. When you transfer a car lease to the plaintiff under the contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff district, the rights and obligations that must be registered and the registration of the companies I hire a car to the plaintiff. Impossible for the plaintiff's case in court I do not. When the plaintiff fails to provide for the registration and vehicle leasing and hire purchase payments for a defendant to pass through 4, the plaintiff is at fault contract. Even if a defendant does not pay the lease period from the 5th until the hire car back to the plaintiff. And hire-purchase agreement that if a defendant fails to pay any installment payment period shall be deemed a termination of the lease contract would be terminated immediately as a breach of contract because the defendant did not pay the lease. The plaintiffs have a contract with the defendant that the defendant is already on a contract not to exercise. The plaintiff had no right to terminate the contract with the defendant that the plaintiff has obtained a letter of termination of contract and the contract was thus secured. Terminate the contract without it.
When we returned to the car hire. When both sides are willing to use the same right to terminate the contract. The Court of Appeal ruled that The contract was terminated by default like it. Each party must provide the other party to return to the status quo as it was in accordance with Section 391 paragraph one, the plaintiff must refund the payment to the plaintiff and the defendant paid a total of four periods. The defendant, a car hire purchase payments for which the defendant is a defendant in a car attacked a price of 630,000 baht and 110,000 baht in cash and pay the registration fee for the registration and vehicle leasing company, I get. The vehicle is part of the subscription. When the plaintiff purchased an automobile that the defendant had to hire a car as part of the lease and the plaintiff received. The defendant also admitted taking money to purchase a car of 740,000 baht to the bill as a down payment of VAT and the receipt, the claimant must be refunded for registration fees and vehicle registration book or hire purchase to the defendant at one with the moment. same The defendant had used a hire car is considered the plaintiff's use of plaintiff's property. The first defendant to the plaintiff to restitution would be made by the worth of money in accordance with Section 391 paragraph three.
Supreme Court in 2763/2551.
Leasing contract hire property is regarded as one of the plaintiff's contract hire property. The landlord promised to sell the leased property to the defendant as a tenant when the rent due. Such agreements are not contracts, Civil and Commercial Code, Section 572.
Supreme Court in 1363/2551.
Case before the Court of First Instance has sentenced the defendant to the most. (The plaintiff in this case) returns the car to lease the defendant. (The plaintiff in this case) if the return is not liable for damages to the plaintiff to pay a certain amount. The defendant can not be used to secure the car hire เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดี it. Because the plaintiff intended to bring the car to escape. The defendant accepted payment for the car. The lack of interest. And damages from the plaintiff by the defendant, not denying or objection to the plaintiff to hire a car the night before. Therefore, finding an exercise in bad faith of the plaintiff by the defendant, not plaintiff. And demonstrate that the intent of the defendant. The defendants chose to settle in court by the plaintiff, instead of the delivery vehicle. A waiver of the right to force the plaintiff to deliver the car back under the ruling. The contract will then be dissolved. However, the defendant accepted payment for such cars. Implicitly held that The defendant agreed to transfer the vehicles to lease to the plaintiff. The vested rights of the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant has the duty to register and deliver the Registration Book car dispute to the plaintiff. When the defendant fails to contest the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff has sued.
Supreme Court in 6862/2550.
Section 572 is to hire purchase agreement, which "owns" the property to rent and pledged to sell the property or that it will provide. Vested property rights to the lessee by the condition that the lessee can use the money. This is the only one. Which authorized the contract must be "owned" but by the condition of the lease ownership of the property would be transferred to the leasing of the future can be transferred as soon as the contract is not "owner" means the ownership of the property. The contract includes the purchase and will be there. Ownership of the property in the future, like when.'ve Bought a tractor vehicle of the dispute. By the. Has power of attorney to transfer the registration of. Then it will change only by the registration authority. As authorized by the plaintiff. The name of the company that will transfer to the plaintiff at any time. The plaintiff has provided for. Lease disputes, and the tractor vehicle. The tractor units sold to the defendant disputes the plaintiff's case is regarded as the "owner" under Section 572 tractors, cars, parties have power purchase agreements have been made. The contract is not void. On the fact that for me. The contract with the plaintiff without the payment of the outstanding charges to pay to the plaintiff, but Back to tractor units sold to the defendant disputes. The defendant has no right to dispute the tractor units are forced to return to the plaintiff which The property owner has the right to pursue and retake the property of others under Section 1336.
Supreme Court in 3830 - 3831/2550.
Although the contract specifies that If the person fails to pay the lease-purchase agreement is terminated for any one period and without prior notice. The lease allows the confiscation of his own money to hire paid all of their respective owners. And allow for property owners to purchase all at once. 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 is a default in payment of installment from the No. 35 for the ninth period, the defendants have to pay to terminate the contract, the plaintiff, the two make contact for payment within 15 days overdue to take a book such. intention 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.
Supreme Court in 3213/2550.
Section 574 provided just that. When you terminate a lease because the lease defaulted on lease payments. The lease has been forfeited and the hire purchase and leasing it back into occupied property only. If the plaintiff has a right to demand payment of overdue payment, with no legal grounds to confiscate the money will be provided only at the early termination of contracts. The plaintiff has no claim to the defendant to pay the first installment due prior to the termination of the contract, but only to the property as long as a defendant in possession of property under Section 391, paragraph three.
Supreme Court in 4921/2549.
Defendants expressly provides that Plaintiffs and defendants have agreed to terminate the contract on September 19, 2540, and the receipt of evidence of defendant's car, which is a party to that claim. Car hire plaintiff was returned on September 19, 2540 so it must be that the lease termination on September 19, 2540, so the parties must return to its original position by the plaintiff is entitled to Section 391. property and compensation from the defendant. When considering the purchase a new car. And the vehicle used to carry water to the employment of the defendant. Should be set equal to the purchase of property and damages to the plaintiff that The defendant paid the plaintiff in a month.
Supreme Court in 2671/2550.
Despite the ruling in a case where the plaintiff sued the defendant to the plaintiff that the lease obligations, respectively. The plaintiff, the defendant must deliver the car the night before purchase. If recovery is not used instead. No one should have to commit to pay the plaintiff will have several options under Section 198 even though the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of debt that must be used instead if it is not. Car hire can be delivered back to the defendant and court fees in full. The defendant objected to without objection. Show that the defendant waived the right to legal liability in the first place. The defendant has a duty to carry out the transfer of rights to purchase and deliver your car at the car registration to the plaintiff. The defendant is not going to be a controversial operation, the plaintiff's rights under Section 55 Civil Code Procedure plaintiff has sued the defendants.
Supreme Court in 3807/2549.
The plaintiff sued the lack of a car lease, then after the contract termination. There is no provision of law, the statute in this particular case. Must be age 10 years when the lease terminated under Section 193/30 of May 30, 2541 the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on September 10, 2544 did not terminate the plaintiff.
Age 6 months, according to Section 563, it is rent property I used to claim the lack of benefit from using the car hire.
Hire-purchase and lease agreements are not at fault, then quit. The lease was forfeited and the defendant paid the plaintiff is already well down with the first paragraph of Section 574.
Supreme Court in 5900/2549.
Hire-purchase agreement from the plaintiff and defendant signed a lease for a car in advance to get the car. The fact that a defendant is assigned two to a car lease from the plaintiff. Is not an offer to contract hire. It does not have an attorney of the defendant.
Supreme Court in 5379/2549.
Captive leasing new vehicles are not registered. Act of plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant had registered the car lease payments to the plaintiff for the plaintiff to proceed to registration. Held that the plaintiff and defendant have agreed that the plaintiff has a registered car hire. After 9 months, the plaintiff has not contracted to perform the registration. The plaintiff is at fault. Deliveries by truck are not suitable to be utilized. The defendant shall have the right to terminate the contract.
Supreme Court in 4819/2549.
Hire-purchase agreement on that. The stolen car to purchase. Defendant to purchase two ways to receive compensation from the plaintiff's tenant, and insurance companies. Which exceed the damages that the defendant received. When the plaintiff and the defendant is in charge of the premiums for beneficiaries would not be a burden on the plaintiff to the defendant is willing to pay for car insurance. And the defendant had the intention to seek compensation from insurance companies. The insurance company approved the payment to the defendant. The defendant paid the plaintiff, after leasing the remainder of the hire car stolen to the exercise of bad faith. Must refund the payment to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court to 142/2549.
Defendant that a contract hire car from the plaintiff by the defendant, 2 and 3 as the guarantor of the debtor's wrong. The defendant, a breach of contract hire. Plaintiff's contract and seized car auctions sell for less money than a night out hire-purchase agreement. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and No. 2 have made an agreement to pay compensation in the amount of 284,007 baht Fasting reduces the damage to just 170,000 and the amount to be deferred and the time payment is made, as well as the interest rates up. the agreement and the amount of damages under the contract. The agreement is the case, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and No. 2 in the settlement of a contract to complete a waiver and refused to do. Such an agreement is a compromise agreement. The debt is not a book. Result in the hire-purchase debt settlement and debt caused by the compromise agreement.
Supreme Court in 1496/2548.
Car hire plaintiff to terminate the contract by the defendant fails to pay the first installment. The termination of the lease. The plaintiff has no right to demand payment of overdue charges. But the damage was due to terminate in accordance with Section 391 paragraph three, paragraph four, and in this case, Article 574, paragraph one, provided that those funds can be used prior to confiscate the property of their respective owners. And property owners like to take back possession of the property for lease only. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a lease specifying that Even in the future to terminate the contract. Hire-purchase agreement to pay the arrears in full before the termination of the contract to the owner until the owner returned the car. Or terminate the contract. The agreement differs from the provisions of that law. But not with the laws concerning public order, shall have the same effect. Section 151 does not void the contract and the liability for damage due to failure to pay in advance. The characteristics of a penalty under section 379.
Supreme Court in 8055/2548.
The lease payments that the plaintiff did not accept the payment by the due time, that the lease did not take the time to pay the lease is immaterial. When the defendant's rights under the lease and transfer of the lease, without objection. Be bound by the wishes of the parties did not take the time to pay the purchase is significant as well. When a termination notice to the defendant pay the plaintiff within a reasonable time before the purchase. When listening to the fact that the defendant owed the plaintiff to hire a third installment-purchase payments for the defendants did not accept the claim that due to 9, it is not paid without legal grounds to claim it. The defendant is the breach of contract. The plaintiff did not pay the lease within the period of notice of termination is also considered that the plaintiff is not in default.
Supreme Court in 8011/2548.
A written contract is not void under Section 572, paragraph two, the owner of the leasing and hire-purchase contract must be signed in by both parties. Contract to be valid under the law. Hire purchase agreements and contracts relating to the contract made with each other and the parties agreed to a contract after the contract is part of the contract, all is indeed a contract, so when the contract signed by both parties in the contract, even if only just. I have a contract that is perfectly legal. When the plaintiff is the owner of the property to the defendant a lease and the lease has been signed by both parties in a letter to the end of the lease. Contract would be perfectly legal. Yes, that is to be signed by both parties at the end of the lease with no visa. Contract is not void.
Supreme Court in 2781/2548.
HMS Partnership has paid the lease to the petitioner, then every year. The payment delay is not defined. But she would get a lease until all installments under the contract. Without termination. The payment schedule is not as significant. Car ownership in the leasing of the medium was immediately transferred to the Partnership under Section 572 R. and hire-purchase clause 3 without first registering the transfer under Article 9 of the lease to the petitioner's interest. payment of overdue bills and expenses to collect them. She would have to claim against R. It is unlikely that the Partnership will be entitled to claim interest under the lease or not. The agreement is not a condition that will not give you ownership of the car in the middle of a vested right to R. Barker Partnership will also be named as the owner of the vehicle by registered letter. She would not do that. There is no right to return the car.
Supreme Court to 356/2548.
When the lease is terminated. Defendant has forfeited the lease, the defendant paid an early termination of contracts. And possession of the car hire only. No claim for payment of the arrears in accordance with Section 574.
Hire-purchase agreement, which stipulates that "The future promises to be even possible to break up. Hire purchase agreement to pay the rent owed to the owner in full before the termination date of the owner of the car overnight. Or terminate the contract "is the liability of the defendant that a no pre-payment. It is a penalty. The court may determine the compensation payable is equal to the purchase or if it exceeds the court likes to be reduced by an amount sufficient to Act Section 383, first paragraph.
Supreme Court in 8880/2547.
Hire purchase agreements and contracts are not guaranteed stamp duty or stamp duty tax on the income tax section 118 stipulates that the instrument I do not stamp must be original or a copy of that document as evidence that a defendant in a civil case does not even have to miss an appointment. shall make appointments and lack of consideration. The plaintiff shall serve as proof that the defendant entered into a lease. When the lease could not hear the evidence. Court can not hear the defendant made a contract with the plaintiff. And even to the second defendant that the defendant made a contract with the second defendant as a guarantor of truth. The testimony of these two defendants would have the effect of a defendant when the defendant is a primary debtor. As a result, the defendant's second trial as guaranteed by
Supreme Court in 4962/2546.
The plaintiff returned the vehicle to purchase is a contract hire one. Without termination. As in any way.
Supreme Court in 5861/2545.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 574 provided just that. When you terminate a lease because the lease defaulted on lease payments. The lease has been forfeited and the hire purchase and leasing it back into occupied property only. The plaintiff to the defendant a lease or lease-purchase payment, all the while the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the car. There are overlapping claims. Inconsistent with the provisions of that law. Plaintiffs claim that defendants have no right to a lease payment due before the termination of a contract. It also has the property over time, the defendant occupied a property under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391, paragraph three and one against the other defendants liable for damages arising from the use of the property lawfully.
Supreme Court in 2630/2545.
Termination of contract law, not forced to denounce the book. If the lease any act which shows that people do not want to take advantage of leasing out property to lease anymore. It held that the termination of the lease by it then. The plaintiff to hire a car lease it back to the termination of the lease.
