Section 927 the draft will be submitted to the payer at the address of the payer. So when I accepted it until it's time to take the money and who will be the only one who will lead them to be in possession time.
In the draft. Payer will be required to certify that the applicant is required to apply for a limited time. Or schedule a time.
Payer bill would prohibit the applicant to certify it. Except in the case of bills which have been ordered to take the money out at any other place other than the domicile of the payer. Or to make money at any time since he had seen.
The payer will be the requirement that it shall not be qualified to apply for one day before the scheduled time.
Everyone will be required to endorse that. The bills submitted for approval. The time limit for filing. Or schedule a time. Unless the payment is not guaranteed.
Section 928 the bill is ordered to spend time at the end of the one after seeing it. Bills must be submitted for approval within six months from the date of the bills sooner or later in time, as the payer to be identified.
Section 929 within the Section 927 provisions, the bill has the right to submit bills to pay immediately for approval. If he does not endorse, and within twenty-four hours a gem. He has the right to protest.
Section 930 of the bill, so he accepted it. He does not have to release it into the hands of the payer.
In addition to paying their bills will be submitted for a second time, the day after the date of filing the first time. You shall not remove the parties whose interests are not pursuant to this order as a defense. Unless it is stated in the objection.
Section 931 of the certification should be done with it in front of the bill as written words, phrases as "certified" or something else, something like that. The signature of the payer. The only sign of settling down in front of the bill. He held that it is approved.
Section 932 the draft to make money in a period of one year from the date of the bill. If it is not dated. Or bills to make money in any one period since has seen. If the certificate is not signed on to the bill as it is today. You will note that the full-day ticket or endorsement by that time. It should be used accordingly.
Furthermore, he stated that In that case, the error made in good faith, but dated to the misunderstanding. And if it all down. If the bill was later defeated by the hands full with the law. Bills are lost because they do not. The bills are still available. And shall be used as well just write down the date that is the actual day.
Section 933 if the certification is not dated. You shall be the last day of the period laid down to ensure it is approved.
Section 934 if they pay the bills and wrote testimonials. If I cross out the first bills out of their hands soon. You shall be deemed that the denial is not guaranteed. However, if the payer has been notified in writing to the holder. Or another party which has signed the bills that he endorsed the bill before then. Therefore, the cross certify to the gem. He said the pay would be bound by the certification body which he had written himself.
Section 935 of the certification shall be in two places. Is guaranteed forever. Or certified shift
Guaranteed forever. The agreement would not resolve the controversial order of the payer, but one at all.
To avert such certification. The body is made of the แผk bills from a set order.
In particular, it is. If approved it with conditions. Or assure you that it is only a part of shift
Section 936 certified to avert. He will reject the bill was lost. And if it does not guarantee that its shift To equate the false belief that the bills be approved.
If the holder receives the certified shift And payable to or endorsed by the expression, the empowerment is not clear whether or not to accept such representations avert it. I do not agree with it later. Payer or a person that would endorse the release of liability under the provisions of the bill, but you shall not apply to the certification, but some of which have already been told this.
If the notes payable to any endorsement of notice of the dispute to avert not, who within a reasonable time. You shall be deemed to have consented shall be paid or endorsed by the then.
Section 937 of the bill to be paid will be bound to pay the amount approved in the context of their testimonials.
Section 938 bill is the guarantor guarantees to pay the entire amount or part time. Which he called "aval".
Aval is the third one will be the recipient. Or even a party to the bills of any party is receiving them.
Section 939 makes it an Aval also written into the bill itself. Or counterfoil
In this case the wording should be used. "Available as aval" or other similar expressions that Aval and signed.
The only sign in front of the aval on bills. He held that it is aval. Except in the case of the signature of the payer or the payer.
In the Aval to guarantee that no person shall be guaranteed unless the payer.
Section 940 would be aval is bound to the same person whom the insurance.
Even the money that liability insurance is an aval, it becomes unusable for any reason other than because it is a mess. He promised that the aval is still incomplete.
Aval on spending the money then. Shall be entitled to take recourse to a person whom I will not guarantee it. Both parties have the responsibility of the person.
Supreme Court in 8296/2551.
The defendant a check made payable to bearer shall be transferred only by delivery to under Section 918, 989 plaintiffs in the transferee as the holder and a holder under the Civil and Commercial Code Section 904 has sued both the defendant liable under check. Both defendants were sued in debt by the bills are not fighting out who is the plaintiff with a defense that relies on personal relations between the province, the former except that the transfer will take place with terrorism cooperation is fraudulent as defined in Section 916 Section 989 of the testimony of the defendant and the defendant only as a check made payable to the province with no debt. It is guaranteed to play shared between them. Notice of such a nature that the relationship between the defendant a check made payable to the province, which is full of people before. Therefore, the defendant will raise such a relationship is a defense to the plaintiff, who checks that the check does not have the same debt. Prohibited under these provisions.
The two defendants did not provide expressly that the transfer of check fraud and how terrorism cooperation. And initially assume that the plaintiff was in good faith in accordance with Section 5 of the Province, the plaintiff sued the defendants in both cases it is not a defense that the defendant will raise both the lean the plaintiff under Section 904 and Section 916 and Section 989 provides that a defendant either. Plaintiff exercised in bad faith, it is clear that the plaintiff does not describe how bad faith. The two are not favored by the defendant P.wi.p. Section 177 paragraph two shall not give rise to disputes and litigation matters. The defendant, a sign the checks defendant 1 should be liable for the contents of the check in accordance with Section 900 on the bank refused to cash the check the defendant is a liable for the check to the plaintiff under Section 914 of the 989 which The defendant received a share of the province, it's not just the province directly to the admonition that a defendant is not involved in the case of an endorsement on the fact that the second hearing that the defendant is a signatory. check payable to the defendant liable under the text in the two bills as a sign of endorsement in order to use the money to shareholders, it would sweep away their responsibility to do. The defendant's position as a guarantee or aval for the second payer. When the bank refused to cash the check, the second defendant to be bound by the same defendant in a Section 989 and Section 921 940.
Supreme Court to 815/2550.
Aval Bank was the recipient of a payment under the promissory note to the Office Depot next to the bank at the recourse would be right in the debtor is a party or their insurance Section 940. the third paragraph of Article 985 and the absence of legal age in particular. The age of 10 years, creditors have been transferred under section 193/30 on the debt claims on the promissory note Aval. The bank was a creditor of the debtor shall be entitled to demand payment within the above time as well.
Aval Bank for the use of promissory notes to the accounts on November 25, 2540, the day due to the use of money. The creditors filed an application for repayment of the debt, promissory note to you Aval. Employees receivership on March 22, 2545 to no more than 10 years, claims of creditors can not terminate the.
Supreme Court in 6054/2550.
The Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited (), which pays the bills were signed in, it is certified under Section 927 must be bound to pay the amount certified by the certification body of their compliance. Section 937 of the debtor and the one with the defendant, one of which is payable to the defendant that one is not in a position to be committed before the Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited () under Section 967, paragraph three, so when the Bank of Thailand. Ltd. (PCL) has been paid to the company, Toyota Motor (Thailand) Ltd., which is the honoring of 92 copies to the Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited () is the recourse that the defendant is one who commands. can not afford it. When there is no recourse then. Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited (), it shall have no claim to be transferred to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant has no power in this case is a problem with the power to sue is an issue relating to public order. Even during the discretion of the court. Both defendants waived the issue to this dispute. The two defendants were entitled to raise claims in the appeal under section 225 paragraph two Civil Procedure Code.
Supreme Court in 6260/2550.
Although all three defendants liable for the debt to be different. But the fact that the underlying cause of the debt that the plaintiff sued for acts arising from the plaintiff and the defendant hired a debt unpaid wages, the same three defendants have a joint interest in accordance with the law. It held that the defendant, the three stakeholders in the value of the case. The plaintiff sued the defendant, the three together in the same case as Civil Procedure Code Section 59.
Despite the fact that listening to the testimony of the defendant, the three defendants, the third payment in settlement of the four copies to the defendant, the two do not have to pay and the plaintiff is the date in case of four and the plaintiff received. transfer to the four already in dispute. But the fact that three pay checks by the day prescribed are listed in the defendant to three to allow full checks on it as expedient to charge the check of the defendant to 3 to pay the debt. So who is the plaintiff in the legal dispute with the four to be held at any time. When the four checks to the dispute. Check payable to the plaintiff, dated as of May 15, 2538 Number 2 Issue Date May 25, 2538, and the number 2 and leaves in the night. The bank the check was refused payment by check case four copies on May 17, 2538, 2 copies and the date May 25, 2538, 2 the plaintiff brought the case to court on May 15, 2539 to the expiration of one year. after the payment date is May 15, 2538 and on May 25, 2538 did not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Supreme Court in 3269/2548.
Plaintiff to the defendant on a promissory note is not aval in as a bank guarantee (aval), the first defendant to use the money to the holders of promissory notes and the contingent liability to the plaintiff. He is the first defendant on the plaintiff to pay the bills for the plaintiffs, who represented a defendant would take recourse to remove a defendant under Section 940 of the first paragraph, the defendant is liable. spend the night under the promissory note to the plaintiff.
Defendant No. 2 issued promissory notes to the defendant at first to be pledged to the plaintiff as security for the plaintiff, not aval promissory note to the defendant, the one which under the pledge agreement that if the defendant that a default on payment to the plaintiff, allow the plaintiff to call. collection of two promissory notes of the defendant that the defendant has the second is a reform of the financial system (Prs.) an order prohibiting the defendant to pay two creditors. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff against the defendant on plaintiff's loan agreement, the two still have not received payment from the defendant to two promissory notes that are pledged. Obligations under the contract that the plaintiff did not hold Aval. It does not make a defendant from liability.
Supreme Court in 5050/2547.
The plaintiff accepted the payment of a promissory note which the defendant is issued as a result of aval defendant has made a request to endorse the bills of the plaintiff. Shows clearly that the intent of the plaintiff and a defendant who seeks to bind directly to the legal relationship between the request to certify the amount and type of contract which can be considered as binding a force as well. Separately from the plaintiff's legal obligation promissory notes shall be aval. The defendant disputed the amount that a ticket is issued so that the money spent by the plaintiff that the promissory note. A. The right of recourse to the Partnership for a defendant to liability under the request of the said bills. The plaintiff sued the defendant liable under a promissory note after the expiration of 3 years from the date of the promissory note to which such disputed claims of Terminate the plaintiff, according to promissory notes in accordance with Section 1001, but claims of the plaintiff to sue to force a defendant liable for the debt arising from a request to endorse a bill that made the defendant to the plaintiff. persists. And claims of the plaintiff in this case. No law, statute or otherwise. The 10-year time limit under Section 193/30 is the case when the plaintiff sued the defendant as a liability under such claims. Which is the expiration of ten years. Does not terminate the litigation.
Supreme Court to 803/2545.
Case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for the money plus interest in the dispute. Even if the plaintiff does not describe whether the plaintiff has been in dispute with any debt. It is only the details that will attest to the floor for further consideration. Not cause the plaintiff's complaint, dark The plaintiff has filed with the Code of Civil Procedure Section 172, paragraph two.
The defendant, who is bidding to have a shared duty bound by the agreement to send money. Night checks payable to the dispute to the auction does not. Or check payable to the dispute with the leader, I share to give to those who have not bid. Which is in dispute, the debt to each other when the plaintiff is in dispute. Check who is in possession of a grade given for payment of shares. Or whether the plaintiff received from the defendant directly. The plaintiff, who is in dispute under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 904, the later he was sharing his music and share this fall. Plaintiffs have exhausted the opportunity to tender shares in the future. I like to call the plaintiff to the defendant payment of shares to be returned to the plaintiff. So when the share fell from falling share this band. Plaintiffs prefer to date on the check payable to the dispute and the charge of the bank. The plaintiff was ever lawfully issued and the date the settlement check into it. Is the actual day. The check is not the defendant disputes the charge payer is liable to pay. According to the plaintiff in the dispute under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 914 and Section 989.
Supreme Court in 3509/2542.
Check a negotiable instrument that requires trust between the payer and who will check that when the bill will be paid by check. Therefore, any provisions which prohibit or restrict the payment will be. Must be in accordance with the provisions of the law. Check out the dispute by the defendant in the black lines on it. When there is no provision of law authorizing that action. Such statements should not be one to check that under the Code. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 899 of the defendant dated check does not check it. When the plaintiff is in dispute and taken into account. Plaintiff or bank checks are dated in the paragraph under Section 910 and Section 989 B. The defendant issued a check payable to the payee. But does not cross out the words "or bearer" to the defendant claims that would check the name. But with a well-proportioned of the defendant does not cross out the words "or bearer" are not in dispute, it must be regarded as a check holder. Plaintiff's signature endorsing the check, the check holder disputes. Have the effect of insurance. Or aval payer. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 921 and Section 989, an aval by operation of law. Not Aval Section 939 does not have to write. Says. Also available is aval.
Supreme Court in 4872/2533.
The second defendant denied that their signature on the back of the check is not disputed that the plaintiff, the defendant's testimony that two individuals who signed the back in case. In the case that the defendant signed a second agreement, your attorney, mortgage application and provide evidence on the issues directly. The court has the power to detect the signature of such a comparison. To weigh the evidence that Enough to obey or not. This case the debt is not debt, borrowing one million baht loan agreement together. But with the mortgaged property as collateral and held as evidence in a mortgage agreement. Borrowing money The defendant. A check payable to dispute the amount of USD 1 million grant to the plaintiff agreed to insure. Check out the dispute was to secure a loan. The plaintiff has the right to sue to enforce the mortgage without prior notice. The defendant signed a second behind the check payable to the Registrar. Plaintiff or cross out the word that holds the top left corner of the front and a message that the account payee only Hgameplieinmืa. The check did not appear to contain expressions that can be aval. Similarly, the defendant or any other case, the two are not a sign that the defendant is not aval to the back of the checks signed by two defendants. 1 is payable by the payee named plaintiff and the defendant presented two checks to. The Court held that the second defendant to sign the back of the check to the plaintiff's voluntary commitment to the Lord. In order to check their liability in a case where a payer with his signature on the check under Section 900 of the Civil and Commercial Code. When the bank refuses to pay the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff's case with interest payments by check.
Supreme Court in 4048/2534.
According to records of loans labeled as a defendant, the plaintiff issued the loan in case the plaintiff as collateral for a loan, however. When recording the fact that two people endorsing the aval in dispute is not a party to the defendant, the two do not remove the Agreement according to the plaintiff and the defendant is one to do it is the intent of the defendant No. 2 was on the defendant. According to a repayment loan, the plaintiff has completed the second defendant would be liable to the plaintiff claimed that it has not. When the second defendant does not make that fight. Plaintiffs fill the date on which the check payable to the dispute itself. The defendant did not claim the second payment under the loan agreement, the two defendants and barred from testimony in the matter under Section 249 P.wi.p..
Supreme Court in 4872/2533.
The second defendant denied that their signature on the back of the check is not disputed that the plaintiff, the defendant's testimony that two individuals who signed the back in case. In the case that the defendant signed a second agreement, your attorney, mortgage application and provide evidence on the issues directly. The court has the power to detect the signature of such a comparison. To weigh the evidence that Enough to obey or not. This case the debt is not debt, borrowing one million baht loan agreement together. But with the mortgaged property as collateral and held as evidence in a mortgage agreement. Borrowing money The defendant. A check payable to dispute the amount of USD 1 million grant to the plaintiff agreed to insure. Check out the dispute was to secure a loan. The plaintiff has the right to sue to enforce the mortgage without prior notice. The defendant signed a second behind the check payable to the Registrar. Plaintiff or cross out the word that holds the top left corner of the front and a message that the account payee only Hgameplieinmืa. The check did not appear to contain expressions that can be aval. Similarly, the defendant or any other case, the two are not a sign that the defendant is not aval to the back of the checks signed by two defendants. 1 is payable by the payee named plaintiff and the defendant presented two checks to. The Court held that the second defendant to sign the back of the check to the plaintiff's voluntary commitment to the Lord. In order to check their liability in a case where a payer with his signature on the check under Section 900 of the Civil and Commercial Code. When the bank refuses to pay the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff's case with interest payments by check. Plaintiff's request to both the plaintiff until the defendant to pay the interest payment is made. Seen as wrong because there is only one claimant will be required to pay the plaintiff. Interest to the plaintiff would not. In the other lawsuit against the two defendants to pay all the interest. It is the plaintiff and defendant to pay interest to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff asked to pay interest to sue. Courts have ruled that the date payment is made by the Court.
Supreme Court to 815/2533.
Plaintiff notes that the Company has aval. Issued to the defendant as a manager of the T. Company. Has secured a contract for the plaintiffs said. If the plaintiff has paid the bills. The defendant refused to pay such money to the plaintiff on the promissory note to the Company. To extend the repayment of promissory notes issued to the T. He and two new promissory notes issued by both. Plaintiffs have promissory notes, both the Aval At the request of the Company. But the final bills are due. The plaintiff has paid the debt, according to promissory notes to the T. As the demands. On promissory notes and the new debt from the first notes and the contract guarantees a defendant the plaintiff has made me that. Defendants plead guilty to reimburse the plaintiff for the plaintiff to pay its bills and Aval. In an amount only. I have a personal statement to be issued, and money is not. The guarantee states that if the plaintiff was granted time to pay off. Bills agreed to by the defendant in a period of time every time. The plaintiff did not notice before. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff in the plaintiff's promissory note to get back with Aval.
Supreme Court in 3590/2536.
The defendants dispute the debt issue to the plaintiff as a loan and taking cash in exchange for payment on the due date of the plaintiff's claim for payment shall be promptly The plaintiff, dated the defendant did not pay in check payable to the date. After the plaintiff demanded the defendant pay the debt. He held that the plaintiff is a legitimate check. Take a day to act in good faith in order to pay for the actual check. According to the Civil and Section 910 of the first paragraph of Section 989.
Supreme Court in 2755/2538.
Creditors, who pay the bills and was certified to be bound to pay according to the flesh. The testimonials of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 937 would be in a position. Primary debtor, the debtor is a debtor who is ordered to pay the bill. Not in a position that had been previously payable under section 967, paragraph three. Creditors have no recourse to enforce against the debtor.
Supreme Court in 3340/2536.
Aval promissory note shall have the obligation is a debt which is issued by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 940, first paragraph, to sue the aval promissory note shall be filed within 3 years from the date to maturity pursuant to Section 1001 of promissory notes. Not for money. Promissory notes must be regarded as any kind of money when they see the second paragraph of Section 984 which requires payment of a promissory note shall be in accordance with chapter The bill also stipulates that the money should be spent on that type under Section 944 of the 985 days on the ticket. However, the money must be filed within the prescribed time, which forced them to give. Acceptance of bills of credit for a certain time after seeing it. For which the deadline for the submission to be accepted. Bills are to be used in a certain period of time after he had seen. Section 928 is that the bills submitted for approval within six months from the date of the bills or At slow speed, but the payer is listed. He notes that any kind of money. When you see may be the ticket to the ticket money from the ticket that. The date of the ticket, but will later be extended to use the money for 6 months from the date the ticket was not. The time spent on tickets. The use of their money when they see it from the date the ticket was due until six months from the date of the ticket. The last day that may apply, depending upon the amount that would be the ticket. Use the money any day. Promissory note dispute dated January 31, 2520 at the end of six months from the date the ticket is dated July 31, 2520 does not appear that the debtor is a person who holds promissory note dispute taken to apply to the use of funds must be considered on July 31, 2520. The last date on which the petitioner may be forced to spend the money, according to promissory notes, the dispute is a dispute about the use of promissory notes. The 3-year-old star of the 1001 must start from the date when the debtor's right to oppose it. I let her spend the money on December 2, 2530 to terminate the Section. 1001 the opposition has no right to demand that she take the money, according to promissory note dispute.
Supreme Court to 199/2532.
The plaintiff, which He notes that the kind of money on demand. Written notice to the defendant and the defendant a ticket for the two promissory notes and money aval. However, the two defendants do not settle. The plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the money. The promissory notes to pay on demand. Do not fall under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Section 944 and Section 985, first paragraph, the holder must take to apply to the use of money within six months from the date of the ticket.
Supreme Court in 2516/2530.
The plaintiff sued the company for lecturing. Issued a draft order the defendant to pay to the Bank. Helicopter Company, a bank representative. And as banker to the payee bank draft endorsed Defence Ministry to the Ministry, the Bank has managed to endorse the bill of the defendant. When the defendant fails to allow the bill to be paid to the bank a. Company. Assigned to the plaintiff as a follow up call to the defendant to pay the banker a. endorsing the bill to the plaintiff as a manager instead. Endorsement of the bank under Section 925 a. to endorse the plaintiff's endorsement is representative of the Company. Which is as follows: The plaintiff sued the defendant can not even describe Eclืabclum sue that "Helicopter Bank has endorsed the bank. a. act on behalf of "the plaintiff filed a resolution that" Company. was assigned to act on behalf of the plaintiff, "plaintiff's complaint is not ambiguous In exchange, according to Section 909 (3) states only that "the name. The brand pays "is assumed to be labeled. "Paid" with the Section 909 (8) states only that "signature payer" need not have written that. "Payer" when the helicopter banks, money exchange. He has endorsed a draft bill to the bank A. Bank A management representative and endorsed to the plaintiff. It was ever issued and plaintiffs are entitled to all due to the ticket. Shall be in accordance with Section 925 the plaintiff was therefore entitled to demand payment under the bill. And prosecution of the defendants named in the bill itself and the company's brand and signature of authorized company representatives had signed with another. A means of exchange. It held that the defendant pays.
Supreme Court to 833/2523.
The bill orders the defendant to the plaintiff bank to pay the defendant's first three orders or instructions. The third branch of the defendant to pay the bill and signed the front of the message. 'Aval guarantee the payer has to be the signature of Bank Aval is the third defendant. The aval is paid under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 938, paragraph two, the final episode.
Section 939, paragraph three which states that 'However, only a sign in front of the aval bill. He held that it is aval. Unless it is signed by the payer or the payer 'means. If the sign in front of the bill without a single word expressions. As provided in paragraph two. Laws should not be regarded as the aval. I signed an endorsement of such payments under Section 931, Section 939, paragraph three, if not already, except that it is both a guarantee of payment and a unique Aval. May not know that sign in any position.
Bank Aval is the recipient of three defendants to be compelled under Section 940 is the third defendant, the plaintiff is bound by the same payer. The three defendants in their respective fields honored Aval it is in accordance with the law. The plaintiff paid the defendant has no power to ban three payment.
Authority is prohibited under Section 992 provisions on matters in particular will not apply to bills of exchange.
In the draft. Payer will be required to certify that the applicant is required to apply for a limited time. Or schedule a time.
Payer bill would prohibit the applicant to certify it. Except in the case of bills which have been ordered to take the money out at any other place other than the domicile of the payer. Or to make money at any time since he had seen.
The payer will be the requirement that it shall not be qualified to apply for one day before the scheduled time.
Everyone will be required to endorse that. The bills submitted for approval. The time limit for filing. Or schedule a time. Unless the payment is not guaranteed.
Section 928 the bill is ordered to spend time at the end of the one after seeing it. Bills must be submitted for approval within six months from the date of the bills sooner or later in time, as the payer to be identified.
Section 929 within the Section 927 provisions, the bill has the right to submit bills to pay immediately for approval. If he does not endorse, and within twenty-four hours a gem. He has the right to protest.
Section 930 of the bill, so he accepted it. He does not have to release it into the hands of the payer.
In addition to paying their bills will be submitted for a second time, the day after the date of filing the first time. You shall not remove the parties whose interests are not pursuant to this order as a defense. Unless it is stated in the objection.
Section 931 of the certification should be done with it in front of the bill as written words, phrases as "certified" or something else, something like that. The signature of the payer. The only sign of settling down in front of the bill. He held that it is approved.
Section 932 the draft to make money in a period of one year from the date of the bill. If it is not dated. Or bills to make money in any one period since has seen. If the certificate is not signed on to the bill as it is today. You will note that the full-day ticket or endorsement by that time. It should be used accordingly.
Furthermore, he stated that In that case, the error made in good faith, but dated to the misunderstanding. And if it all down. If the bill was later defeated by the hands full with the law. Bills are lost because they do not. The bills are still available. And shall be used as well just write down the date that is the actual day.
Section 933 if the certification is not dated. You shall be the last day of the period laid down to ensure it is approved.
Section 934 if they pay the bills and wrote testimonials. If I cross out the first bills out of their hands soon. You shall be deemed that the denial is not guaranteed. However, if the payer has been notified in writing to the holder. Or another party which has signed the bills that he endorsed the bill before then. Therefore, the cross certify to the gem. He said the pay would be bound by the certification body which he had written himself.
Section 935 of the certification shall be in two places. Is guaranteed forever. Or certified shift
Guaranteed forever. The agreement would not resolve the controversial order of the payer, but one at all.
To avert such certification. The body is made of the แผk bills from a set order.
In particular, it is. If approved it with conditions. Or assure you that it is only a part of shift
Section 936 certified to avert. He will reject the bill was lost. And if it does not guarantee that its shift To equate the false belief that the bills be approved.
If the holder receives the certified shift And payable to or endorsed by the expression, the empowerment is not clear whether or not to accept such representations avert it. I do not agree with it later. Payer or a person that would endorse the release of liability under the provisions of the bill, but you shall not apply to the certification, but some of which have already been told this.
If the notes payable to any endorsement of notice of the dispute to avert not, who within a reasonable time. You shall be deemed to have consented shall be paid or endorsed by the then.
Section 937 of the bill to be paid will be bound to pay the amount approved in the context of their testimonials.
Section 938 bill is the guarantor guarantees to pay the entire amount or part time. Which he called "aval".
Aval is the third one will be the recipient. Or even a party to the bills of any party is receiving them.
Section 939 makes it an Aval also written into the bill itself. Or counterfoil
In this case the wording should be used. "Available as aval" or other similar expressions that Aval and signed.
The only sign in front of the aval on bills. He held that it is aval. Except in the case of the signature of the payer or the payer.
In the Aval to guarantee that no person shall be guaranteed unless the payer.
Section 940 would be aval is bound to the same person whom the insurance.
Even the money that liability insurance is an aval, it becomes unusable for any reason other than because it is a mess. He promised that the aval is still incomplete.
Aval on spending the money then. Shall be entitled to take recourse to a person whom I will not guarantee it. Both parties have the responsibility of the person.
Supreme Court in 8296/2551.
The defendant a check made payable to bearer shall be transferred only by delivery to under Section 918, 989 plaintiffs in the transferee as the holder and a holder under the Civil and Commercial Code Section 904 has sued both the defendant liable under check. Both defendants were sued in debt by the bills are not fighting out who is the plaintiff with a defense that relies on personal relations between the province, the former except that the transfer will take place with terrorism cooperation is fraudulent as defined in Section 916 Section 989 of the testimony of the defendant and the defendant only as a check made payable to the province with no debt. It is guaranteed to play shared between them. Notice of such a nature that the relationship between the defendant a check made payable to the province, which is full of people before. Therefore, the defendant will raise such a relationship is a defense to the plaintiff, who checks that the check does not have the same debt. Prohibited under these provisions.
The two defendants did not provide expressly that the transfer of check fraud and how terrorism cooperation. And initially assume that the plaintiff was in good faith in accordance with Section 5 of the Province, the plaintiff sued the defendants in both cases it is not a defense that the defendant will raise both the lean the plaintiff under Section 904 and Section 916 and Section 989 provides that a defendant either. Plaintiff exercised in bad faith, it is clear that the plaintiff does not describe how bad faith. The two are not favored by the defendant P.wi.p. Section 177 paragraph two shall not give rise to disputes and litigation matters. The defendant, a sign the checks defendant 1 should be liable for the contents of the check in accordance with Section 900 on the bank refused to cash the check the defendant is a liable for the check to the plaintiff under Section 914 of the 989 which The defendant received a share of the province, it's not just the province directly to the admonition that a defendant is not involved in the case of an endorsement on the fact that the second hearing that the defendant is a signatory. check payable to the defendant liable under the text in the two bills as a sign of endorsement in order to use the money to shareholders, it would sweep away their responsibility to do. The defendant's position as a guarantee or aval for the second payer. When the bank refused to cash the check, the second defendant to be bound by the same defendant in a Section 989 and Section 921 940.
Supreme Court to 815/2550.
Aval Bank was the recipient of a payment under the promissory note to the Office Depot next to the bank at the recourse would be right in the debtor is a party or their insurance Section 940. the third paragraph of Article 985 and the absence of legal age in particular. The age of 10 years, creditors have been transferred under section 193/30 on the debt claims on the promissory note Aval. The bank was a creditor of the debtor shall be entitled to demand payment within the above time as well.
Aval Bank for the use of promissory notes to the accounts on November 25, 2540, the day due to the use of money. The creditors filed an application for repayment of the debt, promissory note to you Aval. Employees receivership on March 22, 2545 to no more than 10 years, claims of creditors can not terminate the.
Supreme Court in 6054/2550.
The Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited (), which pays the bills were signed in, it is certified under Section 927 must be bound to pay the amount certified by the certification body of their compliance. Section 937 of the debtor and the one with the defendant, one of which is payable to the defendant that one is not in a position to be committed before the Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited () under Section 967, paragraph three, so when the Bank of Thailand. Ltd. (PCL) has been paid to the company, Toyota Motor (Thailand) Ltd., which is the honoring of 92 copies to the Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited () is the recourse that the defendant is one who commands. can not afford it. When there is no recourse then. Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited (), it shall have no claim to be transferred to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant has no power in this case is a problem with the power to sue is an issue relating to public order. Even during the discretion of the court. Both defendants waived the issue to this dispute. The two defendants were entitled to raise claims in the appeal under section 225 paragraph two Civil Procedure Code.
Supreme Court in 6260/2550.
Although all three defendants liable for the debt to be different. But the fact that the underlying cause of the debt that the plaintiff sued for acts arising from the plaintiff and the defendant hired a debt unpaid wages, the same three defendants have a joint interest in accordance with the law. It held that the defendant, the three stakeholders in the value of the case. The plaintiff sued the defendant, the three together in the same case as Civil Procedure Code Section 59.
Despite the fact that listening to the testimony of the defendant, the three defendants, the third payment in settlement of the four copies to the defendant, the two do not have to pay and the plaintiff is the date in case of four and the plaintiff received. transfer to the four already in dispute. But the fact that three pay checks by the day prescribed are listed in the defendant to three to allow full checks on it as expedient to charge the check of the defendant to 3 to pay the debt. So who is the plaintiff in the legal dispute with the four to be held at any time. When the four checks to the dispute. Check payable to the plaintiff, dated as of May 15, 2538 Number 2 Issue Date May 25, 2538, and the number 2 and leaves in the night. The bank the check was refused payment by check case four copies on May 17, 2538, 2 copies and the date May 25, 2538, 2 the plaintiff brought the case to court on May 15, 2539 to the expiration of one year. after the payment date is May 15, 2538 and on May 25, 2538 did not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Supreme Court in 3269/2548.
Plaintiff to the defendant on a promissory note is not aval in as a bank guarantee (aval), the first defendant to use the money to the holders of promissory notes and the contingent liability to the plaintiff. He is the first defendant on the plaintiff to pay the bills for the plaintiffs, who represented a defendant would take recourse to remove a defendant under Section 940 of the first paragraph, the defendant is liable. spend the night under the promissory note to the plaintiff.
Defendant No. 2 issued promissory notes to the defendant at first to be pledged to the plaintiff as security for the plaintiff, not aval promissory note to the defendant, the one which under the pledge agreement that if the defendant that a default on payment to the plaintiff, allow the plaintiff to call. collection of two promissory notes of the defendant that the defendant has the second is a reform of the financial system (Prs.) an order prohibiting the defendant to pay two creditors. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff against the defendant on plaintiff's loan agreement, the two still have not received payment from the defendant to two promissory notes that are pledged. Obligations under the contract that the plaintiff did not hold Aval. It does not make a defendant from liability.
Supreme Court in 5050/2547.
The plaintiff accepted the payment of a promissory note which the defendant is issued as a result of aval defendant has made a request to endorse the bills of the plaintiff. Shows clearly that the intent of the plaintiff and a defendant who seeks to bind directly to the legal relationship between the request to certify the amount and type of contract which can be considered as binding a force as well. Separately from the plaintiff's legal obligation promissory notes shall be aval. The defendant disputed the amount that a ticket is issued so that the money spent by the plaintiff that the promissory note. A. The right of recourse to the Partnership for a defendant to liability under the request of the said bills. The plaintiff sued the defendant liable under a promissory note after the expiration of 3 years from the date of the promissory note to which such disputed claims of Terminate the plaintiff, according to promissory notes in accordance with Section 1001, but claims of the plaintiff to sue to force a defendant liable for the debt arising from a request to endorse a bill that made the defendant to the plaintiff. persists. And claims of the plaintiff in this case. No law, statute or otherwise. The 10-year time limit under Section 193/30 is the case when the plaintiff sued the defendant as a liability under such claims. Which is the expiration of ten years. Does not terminate the litigation.
Supreme Court to 803/2545.
Case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for the money plus interest in the dispute. Even if the plaintiff does not describe whether the plaintiff has been in dispute with any debt. It is only the details that will attest to the floor for further consideration. Not cause the plaintiff's complaint, dark The plaintiff has filed with the Code of Civil Procedure Section 172, paragraph two.
The defendant, who is bidding to have a shared duty bound by the agreement to send money. Night checks payable to the dispute to the auction does not. Or check payable to the dispute with the leader, I share to give to those who have not bid. Which is in dispute, the debt to each other when the plaintiff is in dispute. Check who is in possession of a grade given for payment of shares. Or whether the plaintiff received from the defendant directly. The plaintiff, who is in dispute under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 904, the later he was sharing his music and share this fall. Plaintiffs have exhausted the opportunity to tender shares in the future. I like to call the plaintiff to the defendant payment of shares to be returned to the plaintiff. So when the share fell from falling share this band. Plaintiffs prefer to date on the check payable to the dispute and the charge of the bank. The plaintiff was ever lawfully issued and the date the settlement check into it. Is the actual day. The check is not the defendant disputes the charge payer is liable to pay. According to the plaintiff in the dispute under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 914 and Section 989.
Supreme Court in 3509/2542.
Check a negotiable instrument that requires trust between the payer and who will check that when the bill will be paid by check. Therefore, any provisions which prohibit or restrict the payment will be. Must be in accordance with the provisions of the law. Check out the dispute by the defendant in the black lines on it. When there is no provision of law authorizing that action. Such statements should not be one to check that under the Code. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 899 of the defendant dated check does not check it. When the plaintiff is in dispute and taken into account. Plaintiff or bank checks are dated in the paragraph under Section 910 and Section 989 B. The defendant issued a check payable to the payee. But does not cross out the words "or bearer" to the defendant claims that would check the name. But with a well-proportioned of the defendant does not cross out the words "or bearer" are not in dispute, it must be regarded as a check holder. Plaintiff's signature endorsing the check, the check holder disputes. Have the effect of insurance. Or aval payer. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 921 and Section 989, an aval by operation of law. Not Aval Section 939 does not have to write. Says. Also available is aval.
Supreme Court in 4872/2533.
The second defendant denied that their signature on the back of the check is not disputed that the plaintiff, the defendant's testimony that two individuals who signed the back in case. In the case that the defendant signed a second agreement, your attorney, mortgage application and provide evidence on the issues directly. The court has the power to detect the signature of such a comparison. To weigh the evidence that Enough to obey or not. This case the debt is not debt, borrowing one million baht loan agreement together. But with the mortgaged property as collateral and held as evidence in a mortgage agreement. Borrowing money The defendant. A check payable to dispute the amount of USD 1 million grant to the plaintiff agreed to insure. Check out the dispute was to secure a loan. The plaintiff has the right to sue to enforce the mortgage without prior notice. The defendant signed a second behind the check payable to the Registrar. Plaintiff or cross out the word that holds the top left corner of the front and a message that the account payee only Hgameplieinmืa. The check did not appear to contain expressions that can be aval. Similarly, the defendant or any other case, the two are not a sign that the defendant is not aval to the back of the checks signed by two defendants. 1 is payable by the payee named plaintiff and the defendant presented two checks to. The Court held that the second defendant to sign the back of the check to the plaintiff's voluntary commitment to the Lord. In order to check their liability in a case where a payer with his signature on the check under Section 900 of the Civil and Commercial Code. When the bank refuses to pay the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff's case with interest payments by check.
Supreme Court in 4048/2534.
According to records of loans labeled as a defendant, the plaintiff issued the loan in case the plaintiff as collateral for a loan, however. When recording the fact that two people endorsing the aval in dispute is not a party to the defendant, the two do not remove the Agreement according to the plaintiff and the defendant is one to do it is the intent of the defendant No. 2 was on the defendant. According to a repayment loan, the plaintiff has completed the second defendant would be liable to the plaintiff claimed that it has not. When the second defendant does not make that fight. Plaintiffs fill the date on which the check payable to the dispute itself. The defendant did not claim the second payment under the loan agreement, the two defendants and barred from testimony in the matter under Section 249 P.wi.p..
Supreme Court in 4872/2533.
The second defendant denied that their signature on the back of the check is not disputed that the plaintiff, the defendant's testimony that two individuals who signed the back in case. In the case that the defendant signed a second agreement, your attorney, mortgage application and provide evidence on the issues directly. The court has the power to detect the signature of such a comparison. To weigh the evidence that Enough to obey or not. This case the debt is not debt, borrowing one million baht loan agreement together. But with the mortgaged property as collateral and held as evidence in a mortgage agreement. Borrowing money The defendant. A check payable to dispute the amount of USD 1 million grant to the plaintiff agreed to insure. Check out the dispute was to secure a loan. The plaintiff has the right to sue to enforce the mortgage without prior notice. The defendant signed a second behind the check payable to the Registrar. Plaintiff or cross out the word that holds the top left corner of the front and a message that the account payee only Hgameplieinmืa. The check did not appear to contain expressions that can be aval. Similarly, the defendant or any other case, the two are not a sign that the defendant is not aval to the back of the checks signed by two defendants. 1 is payable by the payee named plaintiff and the defendant presented two checks to. The Court held that the second defendant to sign the back of the check to the plaintiff's voluntary commitment to the Lord. In order to check their liability in a case where a payer with his signature on the check under Section 900 of the Civil and Commercial Code. When the bank refuses to pay the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff's case with interest payments by check. Plaintiff's request to both the plaintiff until the defendant to pay the interest payment is made. Seen as wrong because there is only one claimant will be required to pay the plaintiff. Interest to the plaintiff would not. In the other lawsuit against the two defendants to pay all the interest. It is the plaintiff and defendant to pay interest to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff asked to pay interest to sue. Courts have ruled that the date payment is made by the Court.
Supreme Court to 815/2533.
Plaintiff notes that the Company has aval. Issued to the defendant as a manager of the T. Company. Has secured a contract for the plaintiffs said. If the plaintiff has paid the bills. The defendant refused to pay such money to the plaintiff on the promissory note to the Company. To extend the repayment of promissory notes issued to the T. He and two new promissory notes issued by both. Plaintiffs have promissory notes, both the Aval At the request of the Company. But the final bills are due. The plaintiff has paid the debt, according to promissory notes to the T. As the demands. On promissory notes and the new debt from the first notes and the contract guarantees a defendant the plaintiff has made me that. Defendants plead guilty to reimburse the plaintiff for the plaintiff to pay its bills and Aval. In an amount only. I have a personal statement to be issued, and money is not. The guarantee states that if the plaintiff was granted time to pay off. Bills agreed to by the defendant in a period of time every time. The plaintiff did not notice before. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff in the plaintiff's promissory note to get back with Aval.
Supreme Court in 3590/2536.
The defendants dispute the debt issue to the plaintiff as a loan and taking cash in exchange for payment on the due date of the plaintiff's claim for payment shall be promptly The plaintiff, dated the defendant did not pay in check payable to the date. After the plaintiff demanded the defendant pay the debt. He held that the plaintiff is a legitimate check. Take a day to act in good faith in order to pay for the actual check. According to the Civil and Section 910 of the first paragraph of Section 989.
Supreme Court in 2755/2538.
Creditors, who pay the bills and was certified to be bound to pay according to the flesh. The testimonials of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 937 would be in a position. Primary debtor, the debtor is a debtor who is ordered to pay the bill. Not in a position that had been previously payable under section 967, paragraph three. Creditors have no recourse to enforce against the debtor.
Supreme Court in 3340/2536.
Aval promissory note shall have the obligation is a debt which is issued by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 940, first paragraph, to sue the aval promissory note shall be filed within 3 years from the date to maturity pursuant to Section 1001 of promissory notes. Not for money. Promissory notes must be regarded as any kind of money when they see the second paragraph of Section 984 which requires payment of a promissory note shall be in accordance with chapter The bill also stipulates that the money should be spent on that type under Section 944 of the 985 days on the ticket. However, the money must be filed within the prescribed time, which forced them to give. Acceptance of bills of credit for a certain time after seeing it. For which the deadline for the submission to be accepted. Bills are to be used in a certain period of time after he had seen. Section 928 is that the bills submitted for approval within six months from the date of the bills or At slow speed, but the payer is listed. He notes that any kind of money. When you see may be the ticket to the ticket money from the ticket that. The date of the ticket, but will later be extended to use the money for 6 months from the date the ticket was not. The time spent on tickets. The use of their money when they see it from the date the ticket was due until six months from the date of the ticket. The last day that may apply, depending upon the amount that would be the ticket. Use the money any day. Promissory note dispute dated January 31, 2520 at the end of six months from the date the ticket is dated July 31, 2520 does not appear that the debtor is a person who holds promissory note dispute taken to apply to the use of funds must be considered on July 31, 2520. The last date on which the petitioner may be forced to spend the money, according to promissory notes, the dispute is a dispute about the use of promissory notes. The 3-year-old star of the 1001 must start from the date when the debtor's right to oppose it. I let her spend the money on December 2, 2530 to terminate the Section. 1001 the opposition has no right to demand that she take the money, according to promissory note dispute.
Supreme Court to 199/2532.
The plaintiff, which He notes that the kind of money on demand. Written notice to the defendant and the defendant a ticket for the two promissory notes and money aval. However, the two defendants do not settle. The plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the money. The promissory notes to pay on demand. Do not fall under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Section 944 and Section 985, first paragraph, the holder must take to apply to the use of money within six months from the date of the ticket.
Supreme Court in 2516/2530.
The plaintiff sued the company for lecturing. Issued a draft order the defendant to pay to the Bank. Helicopter Company, a bank representative. And as banker to the payee bank draft endorsed Defence Ministry to the Ministry, the Bank has managed to endorse the bill of the defendant. When the defendant fails to allow the bill to be paid to the bank a. Company. Assigned to the plaintiff as a follow up call to the defendant to pay the banker a. endorsing the bill to the plaintiff as a manager instead. Endorsement of the bank under Section 925 a. to endorse the plaintiff's endorsement is representative of the Company. Which is as follows: The plaintiff sued the defendant can not even describe Eclืabclum sue that "Helicopter Bank has endorsed the bank. a. act on behalf of "the plaintiff filed a resolution that" Company. was assigned to act on behalf of the plaintiff, "plaintiff's complaint is not ambiguous In exchange, according to Section 909 (3) states only that "the name. The brand pays "is assumed to be labeled. "Paid" with the Section 909 (8) states only that "signature payer" need not have written that. "Payer" when the helicopter banks, money exchange. He has endorsed a draft bill to the bank A. Bank A management representative and endorsed to the plaintiff. It was ever issued and plaintiffs are entitled to all due to the ticket. Shall be in accordance with Section 925 the plaintiff was therefore entitled to demand payment under the bill. And prosecution of the defendants named in the bill itself and the company's brand and signature of authorized company representatives had signed with another. A means of exchange. It held that the defendant pays.
Supreme Court to 833/2523.
The bill orders the defendant to the plaintiff bank to pay the defendant's first three orders or instructions. The third branch of the defendant to pay the bill and signed the front of the message. 'Aval guarantee the payer has to be the signature of Bank Aval is the third defendant. The aval is paid under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 938, paragraph two, the final episode.
Section 939, paragraph three which states that 'However, only a sign in front of the aval bill. He held that it is aval. Unless it is signed by the payer or the payer 'means. If the sign in front of the bill without a single word expressions. As provided in paragraph two. Laws should not be regarded as the aval. I signed an endorsement of such payments under Section 931, Section 939, paragraph three, if not already, except that it is both a guarantee of payment and a unique Aval. May not know that sign in any position.
Bank Aval is the recipient of three defendants to be compelled under Section 940 is the third defendant, the plaintiff is bound by the same payer. The three defendants in their respective fields honored Aval it is in accordance with the law. The plaintiff paid the defendant has no power to ban three payment.
Authority is prohibited under Section 992 provisions on matters in particular will not apply to bills of exchange.
