Section 475 if the person has any rights against government interference in the buyer's assets are usually happy because that person is entitled to the assets that are traded in the time it was the fault of those who buy, sell, sell it. That the seller will be liable for the consequences of it.
Section 476 of terrorism if the right buyer, it is already in the market. If the seller is not liable.
Section 477 on any such rights against the interference of a lawsuit between the buyer and third parties. Buyers like to ask the court to call for a co-defendant or a plaintiff in conjunction with The buyer in that case. The court decision is a dispute between the parties are excluded. It is the same case.
Section 478 if the seller is deemed appropriate. Is inserted into the case to reject the claims of third parties. I love to do it.
Section 479 if the property has been traded off to buy all or part of the reason. The front of it. Or that the property falls into one of the provisions of the scene. To depreciation. Or less suitable to be used. Or impair the ease of living. Or impair any benefits, but such property. And the buyer can not sell it in time. If the seller is liable.
Section 480 requires the court to show that if real estate falls in forced servitude by the laws of the gem. If the seller is not liable. Unless it is the seller of the contract that the property is free from the burden that would be free from servitude, or any of them.
Section 481 if the seller is not a party to the lawsuit. If the buyer was a compromise with outsiders. Or allow the parties claim to know that You shall not be liable for prosecution in the front right after the expiration of three months. But the verdict was finally reached in a lawsuit. Or after a compromise. Or rather by a third party claim.
Article 482 The seller shall not be liable to pay when the case is the following.
(1) If no prosecution. The seller and the buyer can prove that the right lost by the fault of the buyer's own.
(2) If the buyer does not have a vendor come into the case. And the seller can prove that. If you run into a case of buyer will win.
(3) If the seller has been the case. The court has raised the demand of the buyer because the buyer's own fault.
But the case is, however. If the seller is a summons to court in the case and refused to join the lawsuit as defendants. Or a plaintiff who purchased gem. You, the seller would be liable.
Supreme Court in 6036/2551.
Road building on disputed land by the defendant against the plaintiff before the land from the plaintiff. The defendant's actions did not violate the plaintiff. But the front right of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff's lease. The plaintiff is not entitled to sue for infringement of legal action against the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2845/2548.
The Supreme Court to revoke the sale of land disputes between the f. The defendant on August 20, 2516, and the land dispute between the plaintiff and defendant on June 21, 2531 as a result, the plaintiff must deliver the land dispute back to April. Ownership. real estate disputes. Both the plaintiff may not possess the land disputes are usually happy because f.'s Government against interfering with the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant will have been registered in good faith deposit to purchase and pay compensation. The plaintiff had purchased the land dispute in good faith and pay compensation as well, so when the plaintiff returned to the owner of the real dispute to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff is entitled to pay the defendant seller are liable for the consequences of the Deprivation of rights. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 475.
Land dispute has broken away from. Because the plaintiff's Deprivation of rights. The defendant shall be liable to pay the disputed land to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 479 is liable to the plaintiff's damages, the defendant disputes the plaintiff to pay the price of land. Go to defendants. The plaintiff's damages, direct damages to real A land dispute that the plaintiff can not be sold to a third party is only expected. Estimates of direct damages to the plaintiff was not damaged by the truth. The defendant is not liable for damages to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2845/2548.
The Supreme Court to revoke the sale of land disputes between the f. The defendant on August 20, 2516, and the land dispute between the plaintiff and defendant on June 21, 2531 as a result, the plaintiff must deliver the land dispute back to April. Ownership. real estate disputes. Both the plaintiff may not possess the land disputes are usually happy because f.'s Government against interfering with the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant will have been registered in good faith deposit to purchase and pay compensation. The plaintiff had purchased the land dispute in good faith and pay compensation as well, so when the plaintiff returned to the owner of the real dispute to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff is entitled to pay the defendant seller are liable for the consequences of the right front. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 475.
Land dispute has broken away from. Because the plaintiff's right, Ron. The defendant shall be liable to pay the disputed land to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 479 is liable to the plaintiff's damages, the defendant disputes the plaintiff to pay the price of land. Go to defendants. The plaintiff's damages, direct damages to real A land dispute that the plaintiff can not be sold to a third party is only expected. Estimates of direct damages to the plaintiff was not damaged by the truth. The defendant is not liable for damages to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2565/2546.
The plaintiff bought the land and buildings by registering the disputed ownership of the three defendants and the plaintiff is the plaintiff's occupation of disputed land and buildings and then later sued Sun for revocation of the land and buildings, the plaintiff sued the defendants dispute that the second and 3, against the defendant. Trial court's decision to withdraw from the trade dispute between the land and building. The defendant in that case. The defendant in that case the disputed ownership of land and buildings to the Sun with the money remaining. The case is indeed the right of ownership of land and The plaintiff immediately put an end to settlement building. The plaintiff had paid the disputed land and buildings are sold to the defense's case can only be seen whether the plaintiff has been damaged by the actions of the defendant seller. Held that the plaintiff was entitled to argue. The plaintiff has sued the authority to transfer the disputed land from the defendant, who sold the Sun plaintiff in that case had not paid the disputed land and building the rest. The seller or not the court in that case is a case where the defendant in that case S will have to correct in the case. Find that the plaintiff's ownership of the land dispute case to be withdrawn. Then back again.
The Sun does not waiver in court or refuses to comply with the ruling in that case the plaintiff in a lawsuit by Sun has entered into an agreement to buy and sell land and buildings after a court dispute. Sentenced to dispute the revocation of the land and buildings. Whether to avoid the payment of fees and taxes, the state will receive from the mortgage. Any transfer or registration costs. It's not about the money that the plaintiff sued for the purchase of land and AKA. Tagore brought back from all three defendants in this case will follow Cmbagcab Sat court in that case or not. It would be correct in this case is not the case, the plaintiff bought the land and buildings do not dispute the ownership of land and buildings. The case against the three defendants to refund the disputed land and buildings are not authorized to act as an exercise in bad faith.
Supreme Court in 8296/2544.
Sales contract with the plaintiff that a defendant but the plaintiff could not sell their product sales. The five defendants to sell before the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant that the defendant is in possession of five sales representatives to take possession of goods obtained by the plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff and the defendant has no legal relationship to each other 5. Actions of the defendant's breach of the lease or five landowners. Need help finding a violation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been given possession of the platform products. It is the plaintiff as a platform for the sale of lease rights in Ontario. Plaintiff to force the landlord to deliver such power to the plaintiff under Section 549 of the acts of the defendant does not contend that the five rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs filed no power to expel.
Supreme Court in 8329/2543.
When it appears that the front right of the disputed land is already in contract to buy and sell By the defendant or the seller is the cause. With regards to the purchase and sale agreements, land disputes, some of the others. The defendant has a duty to eliminate the right to be disturbed before the meeting record. Home ownership. When the defendant is not accused of breach of contract. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the disputed land was not transferred. The defendant has not forfeited to the plaintiff under the contract. And must repay that amount plus interest to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 7218/2542.
Plaintiff from the defendant's purchase of land disputes. And pay the full cost of land to the defendant disputes the plaintiff to the defendant for the land. With interest from the date of the contract, but a land dispute. And through. Notified the plaintiff alleged that the invasion of land disputes. As is the case, respectively. To interfere with the rights of the plaintiff as a promoter in order to be happy because the land disputes are common. A dispute over land ownership in the plaintiff from the defendant, it is hot. Rights under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 475, when the plaintiff does not dispute that the land in the trading hours as part of the land. And the defendant did not prove that the right of the plaintiff has lost by the plaintiff's own fault. Defendant is liable to refund the disputed land to the plaintiff, plus interest.
After the plaintiff was passed. Claim that the disputed land belongs to the past. And the plaintiff would be prosecuted according to the report. Claim is not made in a land dispute. But when the plaintiff's consent to the past. Claim because the plaintiff must be criminal and punishable by imprisonment up. Allowing the plaintiff therefore was not voluntary. And not to allow the third party claims, liability of the defendant as the seller. It is not within the age of 3 months under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 481 and not the plaintiff sued to recover the money What should be contained. But in general under the age of 193/30, which is scheduled to last 10 years.
Supreme Court in 1192/2541.
The defendant contracted to sell the rubber trees planted in the land claims that the defendants, the plaintiff. Plaintiff is ordered to pay two checks to the first defendant was charged. Plaintiff therefore felling rubber trees, but the village has no objection and ordered the plaintiff off. Rubber tree in the land dispute. It claims to be a public space, using the ranch. Plaintiff has ordered the suspension of payments by banks in the second. The termination of the defendant so that the land is planted with rubber, it is true or not, and rights of the defendant. Rubber trees in whole or in part, be transferred to the plaintiff or not. But when the defendant does not take any action or the complaint. Official action to prevent interference from the headman of felling trees. Rubber of the plaintiff to the plaintiff to ensure that the rubber trees are cut down. Convenient and will not be prosecuted. The defendant has not performed any defendant must constitute an agreement by the parties allowing the rubber to claim under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 481, it means that it must be voluntary. But not according to the objection or claim in a criminal or administrative liability in an image. It is oriented to have the person concerned or the complainant shall be forced to comply with them may be prosecuted in a criminal then. If it is not in the meaning and subject to the statute of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 481.
Supreme Court in 2597/2541.
Land sold to the plaintiff, the defendant either. Supreme Court shall be transferred to another person. If someone is against government interference in the rights of the plaintiff, who bought one. Typically, it will occupy the property. Because he has rights over land that had been traded in the market. Both the plaintiff and the defendant is liable under Section 475.
Seller is a party defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiff was not nice - compromise settlement with a third party or allow any third party claim by the plaintiff's case that a particular defendant was not required by Section 481 and the age of 10 years Civil and Commercial Code Section 193/30 of the plaintiff was entitled to claim from the date of April 4, 2534 plaintiff filed a petition with the court on October 1, 2534 the plaintiff to the defendant. But one can not terminate the second defendant did not appear in court as the original. The Section 481 case, the plaintiff need only two defendants to terminate the statutory.
Supreme Court in 2008/2540.
There is a book that accused the plaintiff to notify the plaintiff that a defendant agreed to sell land and buildings to the plaintiff by the defendant's offer to purchase. Expressly stated that The agreement to sell land and buildings are buildings which are not included. The second defendant's office, along with machines and scales that appear on the map as a defendant in a brief notice in advance. The buildings are not owned by the defendant that a plaintiff, but also the purchase and sale contract with the defendant that a plaintiff's rights against the interference of the two defendants in the land purchase. Even if the seller is obligated to deliver possession of the property traded in. Hands of the buyer under Section 461 and 462 and the seller is liable in the event of a terrorist against interference in the rights of the buyer will be. Ownership of property by it pursuant to Section 475, but in this case, the plaintiff, the buyer already know in dealing with the assets of the defendant No. 2 in the land which the plaintiff bought the defendant at first will not be liable for removal and transportation. moving machinery, scales, and damages to the plaintiff under Section 476.
Interfere with the rights of the defendant to two plaintiffs in the possession of the property acquired by it. The plaintiff would be damaged even if the defendant is a seller is not liable to any plaintiff. The buildings, machinery and scales of the defendant No. 2, which was mortgaged to the defendant at a location on the land that the plaintiff purchased from defendant, one does not appear to be listed right above the ground, the defendant, the two can not claim any It will remain on the land of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff told the defendant that the two demolished within 15 days and had 2 get a notice that, on May 26, 2533 Defendant No. 2 is liable to pay damages from the date of May 27, 2533 onwards, together with interest on the damages in The default rate of seven percent a year and a half, according to Section 224 from the default of each month until payment is made.
Supreme Court in 5366/2539.
The defendant sold the car to the plaintiff that the defendant was a vendor approved by default. That the defendant had ownership of the car to sell when the defendant does not have. The car was transferred to the plaintiff was therefore made to the contract. Plaintiff has been damaged, causing the plaintiff to pay the amount due the plaintiff. 240,000 baht to buy back the vehicle from the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be entitled to. Legal action against the said amount from the defendant for prosecution in. Liable to pay their property rights in the age of 3 months under Section 481 of the Civil. And commercial litigation, as this is no time limit set by law is required. The 10-year-old general.
Supreme Court in 7839/2538.
The plaintiff purchased the car from the defendant's case, both in 300,000 without knowing the car is stolen and the owner has registered a fake before. The official was found to be a registered user of the vehicle, the disputed documents. The seizure of counterfeit car dispute to the plaintiff to return to the true owner. Both the defendant as the seller is liable to pay the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement rates. Car dispute to the plaintiff.
Both plaintiff and defendant that Defendants have the right to deduct money from the plaintiff to benefit from the use of vehicles by settlement from the plaintiff that the defendant has benefited from the use of cars that the dispute. The value or price of the car is not disputed that the defendant will be returned. Both defendants have no right to deduct such amount to the price of the car dispute.
Supreme Court in 2053/2538.
The seller is liable for the defendant. Ron rights under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 475 does not even know the cause of. Ron was right that the plaintiff must allow police to seize vehicles which are disputed. Purchased from the defendant because the car was stolen, the liability of the defendant. It is not in force. Section 481 prosecution based on age, but age is 10 years under Section 193/30.
Supreme Court to 395/2538.
The defendant sold the land to the plaintiff at a public portion is reserved. For the sake of the earth, especially as Trapisnakpanichis which can not be traded. A contract to buy and to sell and purchase land, they are intended. It is expressly forbidden by law to void the contract that the defendant never will be. Land purchase and sales agreement with the plaintiff that a contract can not be. Purchase and sale or purchase of such land shall be liable to pay the defendant's rights.
Supreme Court in 2769/2535.
Plaintiff agreed to buy a car from the defendant. But while the defendant and the plaintiff was transferred to the car. Someone else owns. The police had not seized the two cars into the middle of the back. The original owner. Ron was a plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff purchased from defendant's car was taken to the police that the plaintiff does not even have to hire someone else instead of that the damage caused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to damages from the date of the seizure, and can think of. Any interest in it. Interest is not redundant. The plaintiff has reason to expect that if the plaintiff does not allow the car. The plaintiff was a police officer may arrest It is not allowed by the third party claim. The age of 3 months under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 481 requires a 10-year-old sense of normalcy.
Supreme Court in 2106/2535.
Plaintiff's husband was a legitimate dispute with the money to buy a car from the defendant. And her husband a letter of consent to the plaintiff to sue the defendant, but it appears from the document. About trading and the transfer of the vehicle registration. Plaintiff's husband, only to contract disputes, as car buyers. The plaintiff did not have any legal relationship with the defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant has no liability to pay the disputed contract vehicles.
Supreme Court in 2759/2531.
A fourth defendant and the defendant, a former owner of the unpaid tax disputes before the transfer to the plaintiff to the defendant, the three defendants to three, which is the disputed ownership of the building to be jointly liable for the tax. Outstanding debt as a share. Land tax as a result of the Act, BE 2475, Section 45.
The three defendants are liable for the unpaid tax from the four defendants owned the property market is not falling into any one subject. Any depreciation or deterioration, which is why it will benefit the property. As provided in Section 479 of the Civil and Commercial Court to be sentenced four defendants liable for the tax owed to the defendant to three to finish in the same case under Section 477 does not.
Supreme Court to 926/2530.
Land Department shall have the power to revoke the registration of land transactions and land. The official registration of land ownership and title deeds, wrongful discrimination. By a power of attorney to settle the back end because the attorney was executed by the Land Law Section 61.
Although the three defendants to purchase the ownership dispute was registered through registration and pay compensation. Given in good faith. The plaintiff had purchased the property from the third defendant in good faith as well. When the Land Department to revoke the registration of the dispute and the disputed land. As a result, ownership of the property is returned to the owner of the real case. This is considered. Plaintiff, the defendant was Ronsittis 3 will be liable to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 479.
Supreme Court in 3396/2529.
3 is a defendant in the investigation and officers have a duty under the law in pursuit. Facts, evidence, and to know all about it. Fact that it was against punishing the perpetrators and bring them to the defendant, the third successor. Note that the car park of the section. That was misapplied to the possession of the plaintiff and the seized vehicle. Such vehicles for the purpose of the litigation and actions by the authorities. By law defendants 3 and 4 of the Police Department accused the agency is not liable for the plaintiff, the plaintiff bought the car from the market in good faith they obtained ownership of the vehicle purchase. Civil and Commercial Code Section 1332 not only provided that the buyer does not have to. Returned to the owner unless the owner will pay the price when you buy. Police tracked the car as the car that night, and the court ruled that the plaintiff Receive payment on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to pay the plaintiff would be delivered. The plaintiff's car did not.
Supreme Court to 981/2523.
The officers seized a car purchased from the defendant to the plaintiff in a criminal case. And refused to return plaintiff's car because it was outside the main villain. Under circumstances that would listen that the party disputes the original car owners. Not interfere with the rights of the plaintiff's original promoters, buyers will use or possession of the car. Disputes are usually happy because they have the right to dispute over a car at the time, it has traded. That the plaintiff was not required to pay the plaintiff the right to return the car unless it has been stated. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1332 does not make the right not to pay it when the dispute has broken away from the plaintiff buyer. The seller is liable to pay the defendant disputes the car back to the plaintiff under Section 479.
Section 476 of terrorism if the right buyer, it is already in the market. If the seller is not liable.
Section 477 on any such rights against the interference of a lawsuit between the buyer and third parties. Buyers like to ask the court to call for a co-defendant or a plaintiff in conjunction with The buyer in that case. The court decision is a dispute between the parties are excluded. It is the same case.
Section 478 if the seller is deemed appropriate. Is inserted into the case to reject the claims of third parties. I love to do it.
Section 479 if the property has been traded off to buy all or part of the reason. The front of it. Or that the property falls into one of the provisions of the scene. To depreciation. Or less suitable to be used. Or impair the ease of living. Or impair any benefits, but such property. And the buyer can not sell it in time. If the seller is liable.
Section 480 requires the court to show that if real estate falls in forced servitude by the laws of the gem. If the seller is not liable. Unless it is the seller of the contract that the property is free from the burden that would be free from servitude, or any of them.
Section 481 if the seller is not a party to the lawsuit. If the buyer was a compromise with outsiders. Or allow the parties claim to know that You shall not be liable for prosecution in the front right after the expiration of three months. But the verdict was finally reached in a lawsuit. Or after a compromise. Or rather by a third party claim.
Article 482 The seller shall not be liable to pay when the case is the following.
(1) If no prosecution. The seller and the buyer can prove that the right lost by the fault of the buyer's own.
(2) If the buyer does not have a vendor come into the case. And the seller can prove that. If you run into a case of buyer will win.
(3) If the seller has been the case. The court has raised the demand of the buyer because the buyer's own fault.
But the case is, however. If the seller is a summons to court in the case and refused to join the lawsuit as defendants. Or a plaintiff who purchased gem. You, the seller would be liable.
Supreme Court in 6036/2551.
Road building on disputed land by the defendant against the plaintiff before the land from the plaintiff. The defendant's actions did not violate the plaintiff. But the front right of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff's lease. The plaintiff is not entitled to sue for infringement of legal action against the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2845/2548.
The Supreme Court to revoke the sale of land disputes between the f. The defendant on August 20, 2516, and the land dispute between the plaintiff and defendant on June 21, 2531 as a result, the plaintiff must deliver the land dispute back to April. Ownership. real estate disputes. Both the plaintiff may not possess the land disputes are usually happy because f.'s Government against interfering with the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant will have been registered in good faith deposit to purchase and pay compensation. The plaintiff had purchased the land dispute in good faith and pay compensation as well, so when the plaintiff returned to the owner of the real dispute to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff is entitled to pay the defendant seller are liable for the consequences of the Deprivation of rights. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 475.
Land dispute has broken away from. Because the plaintiff's Deprivation of rights. The defendant shall be liable to pay the disputed land to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 479 is liable to the plaintiff's damages, the defendant disputes the plaintiff to pay the price of land. Go to defendants. The plaintiff's damages, direct damages to real A land dispute that the plaintiff can not be sold to a third party is only expected. Estimates of direct damages to the plaintiff was not damaged by the truth. The defendant is not liable for damages to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2845/2548.
The Supreme Court to revoke the sale of land disputes between the f. The defendant on August 20, 2516, and the land dispute between the plaintiff and defendant on June 21, 2531 as a result, the plaintiff must deliver the land dispute back to April. Ownership. real estate disputes. Both the plaintiff may not possess the land disputes are usually happy because f.'s Government against interfering with the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant will have been registered in good faith deposit to purchase and pay compensation. The plaintiff had purchased the land dispute in good faith and pay compensation as well, so when the plaintiff returned to the owner of the real dispute to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff is entitled to pay the defendant seller are liable for the consequences of the right front. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 475.
Land dispute has broken away from. Because the plaintiff's right, Ron. The defendant shall be liable to pay the disputed land to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 479 is liable to the plaintiff's damages, the defendant disputes the plaintiff to pay the price of land. Go to defendants. The plaintiff's damages, direct damages to real A land dispute that the plaintiff can not be sold to a third party is only expected. Estimates of direct damages to the plaintiff was not damaged by the truth. The defendant is not liable for damages to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2565/2546.
The plaintiff bought the land and buildings by registering the disputed ownership of the three defendants and the plaintiff is the plaintiff's occupation of disputed land and buildings and then later sued Sun for revocation of the land and buildings, the plaintiff sued the defendants dispute that the second and 3, against the defendant. Trial court's decision to withdraw from the trade dispute between the land and building. The defendant in that case. The defendant in that case the disputed ownership of land and buildings to the Sun with the money remaining. The case is indeed the right of ownership of land and The plaintiff immediately put an end to settlement building. The plaintiff had paid the disputed land and buildings are sold to the defense's case can only be seen whether the plaintiff has been damaged by the actions of the defendant seller. Held that the plaintiff was entitled to argue. The plaintiff has sued the authority to transfer the disputed land from the defendant, who sold the Sun plaintiff in that case had not paid the disputed land and building the rest. The seller or not the court in that case is a case where the defendant in that case S will have to correct in the case. Find that the plaintiff's ownership of the land dispute case to be withdrawn. Then back again.
The Sun does not waiver in court or refuses to comply with the ruling in that case the plaintiff in a lawsuit by Sun has entered into an agreement to buy and sell land and buildings after a court dispute. Sentenced to dispute the revocation of the land and buildings. Whether to avoid the payment of fees and taxes, the state will receive from the mortgage. Any transfer or registration costs. It's not about the money that the plaintiff sued for the purchase of land and AKA. Tagore brought back from all three defendants in this case will follow Cmbagcab Sat court in that case or not. It would be correct in this case is not the case, the plaintiff bought the land and buildings do not dispute the ownership of land and buildings. The case against the three defendants to refund the disputed land and buildings are not authorized to act as an exercise in bad faith.
Supreme Court in 8296/2544.
Sales contract with the plaintiff that a defendant but the plaintiff could not sell their product sales. The five defendants to sell before the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant that the defendant is in possession of five sales representatives to take possession of goods obtained by the plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff and the defendant has no legal relationship to each other 5. Actions of the defendant's breach of the lease or five landowners. Need help finding a violation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been given possession of the platform products. It is the plaintiff as a platform for the sale of lease rights in Ontario. Plaintiff to force the landlord to deliver such power to the plaintiff under Section 549 of the acts of the defendant does not contend that the five rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs filed no power to expel.
Supreme Court in 8329/2543.
When it appears that the front right of the disputed land is already in contract to buy and sell By the defendant or the seller is the cause. With regards to the purchase and sale agreements, land disputes, some of the others. The defendant has a duty to eliminate the right to be disturbed before the meeting record. Home ownership. When the defendant is not accused of breach of contract. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the disputed land was not transferred. The defendant has not forfeited to the plaintiff under the contract. And must repay that amount plus interest to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 7218/2542.
Plaintiff from the defendant's purchase of land disputes. And pay the full cost of land to the defendant disputes the plaintiff to the defendant for the land. With interest from the date of the contract, but a land dispute. And through. Notified the plaintiff alleged that the invasion of land disputes. As is the case, respectively. To interfere with the rights of the plaintiff as a promoter in order to be happy because the land disputes are common. A dispute over land ownership in the plaintiff from the defendant, it is hot. Rights under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 475, when the plaintiff does not dispute that the land in the trading hours as part of the land. And the defendant did not prove that the right of the plaintiff has lost by the plaintiff's own fault. Defendant is liable to refund the disputed land to the plaintiff, plus interest.
After the plaintiff was passed. Claim that the disputed land belongs to the past. And the plaintiff would be prosecuted according to the report. Claim is not made in a land dispute. But when the plaintiff's consent to the past. Claim because the plaintiff must be criminal and punishable by imprisonment up. Allowing the plaintiff therefore was not voluntary. And not to allow the third party claims, liability of the defendant as the seller. It is not within the age of 3 months under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 481 and not the plaintiff sued to recover the money What should be contained. But in general under the age of 193/30, which is scheduled to last 10 years.
Supreme Court in 1192/2541.
The defendant contracted to sell the rubber trees planted in the land claims that the defendants, the plaintiff. Plaintiff is ordered to pay two checks to the first defendant was charged. Plaintiff therefore felling rubber trees, but the village has no objection and ordered the plaintiff off. Rubber tree in the land dispute. It claims to be a public space, using the ranch. Plaintiff has ordered the suspension of payments by banks in the second. The termination of the defendant so that the land is planted with rubber, it is true or not, and rights of the defendant. Rubber trees in whole or in part, be transferred to the plaintiff or not. But when the defendant does not take any action or the complaint. Official action to prevent interference from the headman of felling trees. Rubber of the plaintiff to the plaintiff to ensure that the rubber trees are cut down. Convenient and will not be prosecuted. The defendant has not performed any defendant must constitute an agreement by the parties allowing the rubber to claim under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 481, it means that it must be voluntary. But not according to the objection or claim in a criminal or administrative liability in an image. It is oriented to have the person concerned or the complainant shall be forced to comply with them may be prosecuted in a criminal then. If it is not in the meaning and subject to the statute of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 481.
Supreme Court in 2597/2541.
Land sold to the plaintiff, the defendant either. Supreme Court shall be transferred to another person. If someone is against government interference in the rights of the plaintiff, who bought one. Typically, it will occupy the property. Because he has rights over land that had been traded in the market. Both the plaintiff and the defendant is liable under Section 475.
Seller is a party defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiff was not nice - compromise settlement with a third party or allow any third party claim by the plaintiff's case that a particular defendant was not required by Section 481 and the age of 10 years Civil and Commercial Code Section 193/30 of the plaintiff was entitled to claim from the date of April 4, 2534 plaintiff filed a petition with the court on October 1, 2534 the plaintiff to the defendant. But one can not terminate the second defendant did not appear in court as the original. The Section 481 case, the plaintiff need only two defendants to terminate the statutory.
Supreme Court in 2008/2540.
There is a book that accused the plaintiff to notify the plaintiff that a defendant agreed to sell land and buildings to the plaintiff by the defendant's offer to purchase. Expressly stated that The agreement to sell land and buildings are buildings which are not included. The second defendant's office, along with machines and scales that appear on the map as a defendant in a brief notice in advance. The buildings are not owned by the defendant that a plaintiff, but also the purchase and sale contract with the defendant that a plaintiff's rights against the interference of the two defendants in the land purchase. Even if the seller is obligated to deliver possession of the property traded in. Hands of the buyer under Section 461 and 462 and the seller is liable in the event of a terrorist against interference in the rights of the buyer will be. Ownership of property by it pursuant to Section 475, but in this case, the plaintiff, the buyer already know in dealing with the assets of the defendant No. 2 in the land which the plaintiff bought the defendant at first will not be liable for removal and transportation. moving machinery, scales, and damages to the plaintiff under Section 476.
Interfere with the rights of the defendant to two plaintiffs in the possession of the property acquired by it. The plaintiff would be damaged even if the defendant is a seller is not liable to any plaintiff. The buildings, machinery and scales of the defendant No. 2, which was mortgaged to the defendant at a location on the land that the plaintiff purchased from defendant, one does not appear to be listed right above the ground, the defendant, the two can not claim any It will remain on the land of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff told the defendant that the two demolished within 15 days and had 2 get a notice that, on May 26, 2533 Defendant No. 2 is liable to pay damages from the date of May 27, 2533 onwards, together with interest on the damages in The default rate of seven percent a year and a half, according to Section 224 from the default of each month until payment is made.
Supreme Court in 5366/2539.
The defendant sold the car to the plaintiff that the defendant was a vendor approved by default. That the defendant had ownership of the car to sell when the defendant does not have. The car was transferred to the plaintiff was therefore made to the contract. Plaintiff has been damaged, causing the plaintiff to pay the amount due the plaintiff. 240,000 baht to buy back the vehicle from the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be entitled to. Legal action against the said amount from the defendant for prosecution in. Liable to pay their property rights in the age of 3 months under Section 481 of the Civil. And commercial litigation, as this is no time limit set by law is required. The 10-year-old general.
Supreme Court in 7839/2538.
The plaintiff purchased the car from the defendant's case, both in 300,000 without knowing the car is stolen and the owner has registered a fake before. The official was found to be a registered user of the vehicle, the disputed documents. The seizure of counterfeit car dispute to the plaintiff to return to the true owner. Both the defendant as the seller is liable to pay the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement rates. Car dispute to the plaintiff.
Both plaintiff and defendant that Defendants have the right to deduct money from the plaintiff to benefit from the use of vehicles by settlement from the plaintiff that the defendant has benefited from the use of cars that the dispute. The value or price of the car is not disputed that the defendant will be returned. Both defendants have no right to deduct such amount to the price of the car dispute.
Supreme Court in 2053/2538.
The seller is liable for the defendant. Ron rights under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 475 does not even know the cause of. Ron was right that the plaintiff must allow police to seize vehicles which are disputed. Purchased from the defendant because the car was stolen, the liability of the defendant. It is not in force. Section 481 prosecution based on age, but age is 10 years under Section 193/30.
Supreme Court to 395/2538.
The defendant sold the land to the plaintiff at a public portion is reserved. For the sake of the earth, especially as Trapisnakpanichis which can not be traded. A contract to buy and to sell and purchase land, they are intended. It is expressly forbidden by law to void the contract that the defendant never will be. Land purchase and sales agreement with the plaintiff that a contract can not be. Purchase and sale or purchase of such land shall be liable to pay the defendant's rights.
Supreme Court in 2769/2535.
Plaintiff agreed to buy a car from the defendant. But while the defendant and the plaintiff was transferred to the car. Someone else owns. The police had not seized the two cars into the middle of the back. The original owner. Ron was a plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff purchased from defendant's car was taken to the police that the plaintiff does not even have to hire someone else instead of that the damage caused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to damages from the date of the seizure, and can think of. Any interest in it. Interest is not redundant. The plaintiff has reason to expect that if the plaintiff does not allow the car. The plaintiff was a police officer may arrest It is not allowed by the third party claim. The age of 3 months under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 481 requires a 10-year-old sense of normalcy.
Supreme Court in 2106/2535.
Plaintiff's husband was a legitimate dispute with the money to buy a car from the defendant. And her husband a letter of consent to the plaintiff to sue the defendant, but it appears from the document. About trading and the transfer of the vehicle registration. Plaintiff's husband, only to contract disputes, as car buyers. The plaintiff did not have any legal relationship with the defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant has no liability to pay the disputed contract vehicles.
Supreme Court in 2759/2531.
A fourth defendant and the defendant, a former owner of the unpaid tax disputes before the transfer to the plaintiff to the defendant, the three defendants to three, which is the disputed ownership of the building to be jointly liable for the tax. Outstanding debt as a share. Land tax as a result of the Act, BE 2475, Section 45.
The three defendants are liable for the unpaid tax from the four defendants owned the property market is not falling into any one subject. Any depreciation or deterioration, which is why it will benefit the property. As provided in Section 479 of the Civil and Commercial Court to be sentenced four defendants liable for the tax owed to the defendant to three to finish in the same case under Section 477 does not.
Supreme Court to 926/2530.
Land Department shall have the power to revoke the registration of land transactions and land. The official registration of land ownership and title deeds, wrongful discrimination. By a power of attorney to settle the back end because the attorney was executed by the Land Law Section 61.
Although the three defendants to purchase the ownership dispute was registered through registration and pay compensation. Given in good faith. The plaintiff had purchased the property from the third defendant in good faith as well. When the Land Department to revoke the registration of the dispute and the disputed land. As a result, ownership of the property is returned to the owner of the real case. This is considered. Plaintiff, the defendant was Ronsittis 3 will be liable to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 479.
Supreme Court in 3396/2529.
3 is a defendant in the investigation and officers have a duty under the law in pursuit. Facts, evidence, and to know all about it. Fact that it was against punishing the perpetrators and bring them to the defendant, the third successor. Note that the car park of the section. That was misapplied to the possession of the plaintiff and the seized vehicle. Such vehicles for the purpose of the litigation and actions by the authorities. By law defendants 3 and 4 of the Police Department accused the agency is not liable for the plaintiff, the plaintiff bought the car from the market in good faith they obtained ownership of the vehicle purchase. Civil and Commercial Code Section 1332 not only provided that the buyer does not have to. Returned to the owner unless the owner will pay the price when you buy. Police tracked the car as the car that night, and the court ruled that the plaintiff Receive payment on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to pay the plaintiff would be delivered. The plaintiff's car did not.
Supreme Court to 981/2523.
The officers seized a car purchased from the defendant to the plaintiff in a criminal case. And refused to return plaintiff's car because it was outside the main villain. Under circumstances that would listen that the party disputes the original car owners. Not interfere with the rights of the plaintiff's original promoters, buyers will use or possession of the car. Disputes are usually happy because they have the right to dispute over a car at the time, it has traded. That the plaintiff was not required to pay the plaintiff the right to return the car unless it has been stated. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1332 does not make the right not to pay it when the dispute has broken away from the plaintiff buyer. The seller is liable to pay the defendant disputes the car back to the plaintiff under Section 479.
