Section 898 of bills within the meaning of this Code is one of three categories: one is issued. Promissory notes, one of the checks.
Section 899 of the text which is not provided for in this Code. Is written into the bill. You will then find that the message is one of the bills are not.
Section 900 who have signed their bills. Body is liable under the bill.
If the only sign of any such mark or fingerprints on it as a sign that bill soon. Even if the witnesses sign it. The result is that you sign the bill does not.
Section 901 if the person who signed their bills. It is not a statement that a person acting on behalf of another gem. That person would be liable under the bill.
Section 902 of the bills signed by several persons. A person may not be a party to the bill at all. Or is it not a gem. You know that there are not wound up the liability of third parties which are liable under the bill.
Section 903 of the money bills. You shall not give relief.
Section 904 which means that a person who is in possession of bills. The base is a beneficiary. Or the endorsement. If a bill payable to bearer, it is the most common.
Section 905 within the provisions of Section 1008 who was in possession of bills. If it appears to the right by endorsing the continuous Even if the endorsement is the endorsement of the floating matter. You shall be deemed to be lawfully When the float has been endorsed by the other party endorsements. You are the person who signed the biggest endorsement of them. The bill, which has been endorsed by the float. The endorsement on the cross, then you are treated as not having it.
If any person should be free exchange of possession. You know who has the rights to their tickets based on how those in the preceding paragraph. I do not need to take notes. Unless obtained by fraud. Or with serious negligence.
The text in this paragraph. Shall apply to all holders of bills payable to holders as well.
Section 906 that the parties were before it, including the payer. Or issuing bills, and endorsed by the former.
Section 907 was no endorsement on the bill, which will continue to remember you are authorized to remove the paper labels attached to the bill known as the counterfoil The bills are part of it.
Endorsement of the application period for the first time to write notes on what was on the cards for me.
Supreme Court in 2545/2553.
This case was referred to a debt repayment due to a breach of contract, bills discounted. The plaintiff sued the bank debt in the case of a call to pay by check as payment. The different types of transactions. The liability of the defendant is subject to the agreement to sell the bills. When the bank refused to cash the check. Plaintiff to bring an action against the Bank, there have been a compromise agreement by the Bank loan debt to the plaintiff, the Bank will pay the debt to the plaintiff until the amount is only a liability in the case of the Bank. The plaintiff sued to block the only But in the sales contracts, bills discounted. Plaintiffs prefer to use the money is paid back each time to pay the interest that accrued before The rest is applied towards payment of principal payable in respect of each tranche in accordance with Section 329, first paragraph.
Supreme Court in 3319/2552.
The defendant signed a check payable to dispute the amount of 200,000 baht to the plaintiff, check to be paid. The bank the check was refused payment by arguing that not enough money in the account to pay. The decision by the Supreme Court has required that the Plaintiffs. The defendant will be liable to the plaintiff as a number. The Court of Appeal Region 3 that this case ruled that the defendant signed a check payable to the plaintiff, but disputed the amount of 200,000 baht to 100,000 baht debt to the defendant and the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, only 100,000 of the defendant's claim that by listening. If the defendant is liable, it shall order a credit check, MP checks each second to 50,000 baht and 100,000 baht, the defendant's signature endorsing the check, the two only. The defendant requested the court to order the book, cash account of the plaintiff to show a list of the money to pay all of the days between September 17, 2539 until July 15, 2540, and between 1. June 2543 until August 30, 2543, the documents in the possession of the plaintiff's evidence. To prove the claim of the defendant but the plaintiff failed to submit such documents to the court. Appeal Region 3 has ruled that the plaintiff did not comply with the order of the court documents, without reasonable cause. The fact of the defendant's claim that the defendant's debt to the plaintiff's acceptance of up to 100,000 baht Joe P.wi.p. provisions of Section 123 shall be liable to the plaintiff by the defendant is in dispute, it is only 100,000. The presumption under Section 123 shall not apply to such cases. The defendant claims that the original documents in the possession of the plaintiff, the defendant will be referred to as evidence must be evidence that the witnesses could prove the key issues in directly. This case can serve as proof of the defendant, who is from that. Check payable to the defendant disputes the plaintiff in the year 2541, the documentary evidence that the defendant asked the court from the plaintiff. The book, cash account of the plaintiff during the period September 17, 2539 until July 25, 2540, and during the period June 1, 2543 to August 13, 2543, not in the length of time a defendant claims to have paid in settlement to the plaintiff, so. Although the defendant requested and the defendant can prove that any checks are cut out to sell to Joe, or there is evidence that the defendant owed the plaintiff the amount. It is important to have clear evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant signed a check payable to the plaintiff to dispute the amount of Baht 200,000 per claimant, which is like a check, the check to the bank to cash the check but the bank refused to pay. Defendants are liable under the body of the check in accordance with Section 900 paragraph one.
Supreme Court to 521/2552.
The Court determined that the dispute. In dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant both. The defendants, one of the debt or not. The plaintiff, who checked into the possession of a lawfully or not. The fact that the Court of Appeal hearing. Plaintiff's attorney to the defendant, the two contracts, land of the plaintiff and the building of the defendant, a defendant in a settlement of the land to the defendant, two complete, but accused the two did not get the money remaining to be delivered. The plaintiff accused the two proposed sale of land and the wife of defendant No. 2 for the defendant, a defendant, an issue disputed the fact that two defendants, the two endorsements in dispute to be given to the plaintiff to pay for that part. to which the Court of Appeal has ruled that in disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant both. Or the defendant one debt to each other. And receive a check from the plaintiff was in possession as owner by law. Issues and disputes. The Court of Appeal has ruled on the issue continued. Both defendants are jointly liable to pay by check to the plaintiff or not. Lopez has not ruled on the issue beyond dispute that the Court of Appeal that the plaintiff was ever in conflict with the law. It further ruled that the defendant must both be jointly liable to the plaintiff to pay by check or by Section 900.
Defendant signed a check payable to the settlement of disputes, the second wife of the defendant to the second defendant in a dispute between the two defendants with the same debt. When the defendant second signature endorsing the check was delivered to the disputed land to the plaintiff to pay the second defendant owed the plaintiff existed. The plaintiff, who is in conflict with the law. The two defendants who sign the checks would be liable under the dispute settlement body in check, and the defendant is being sued in a check data. He may struggle to find a defense to a personal relationship between the payer or who they were before, except that the transfer will not have to cheat with terrorism cooperation.
Supreme Court in 9384/2552.
Assigned to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's money to bail Sat g Court. The defendant received money from the MP to take action when the case reached the Court of First Instance ordered the insurance money payable by the bank district, a defendant is the payee. Defendants who are in a position in the money base is expected to submit a check to the bank to cash his check only. The defendant shall be used to pay the bank the check is not the defendant received money or property on which the defendant had a duty to deliver to the plaintiff which is in accordance with Section 810 directly. defendant fails to pay such money to the plaintiff. It is that the plaintiff is entitled to payment of the property of the defendant. Including money or other property. That the defendant owed to such third parties in accordance with Section 214 the plaintiff had no right to compel the defendant to withdraw from the bank the check given to the plaintiff. It also asked the banks, which are used by third parties in such cases the plaintiff does not.
The plaintiff's complaint has been filed, the defendant forced to withdraw by check payable to the plaintiff the amount of 70,000 Baht can be considered a complaint seeking to force the defendant to pay a debt payment. It can not be forced to act against the defendant. The court also sentenced the defendant to the plaintiff for such payments.
Supreme Court in 5526/2552.
Any person who is in the law would be considered under Section 904, which refers to persons who are in possession of the bills as a receiver or receiver and is endorsing a bill payable to bearer. Holders, it is the holder as well, so the fact that the bank refused to pay the check. He is in dispute in the plaintiff's right to Wed am and Mon, which is as a person, not three. The third person, all three are related, as representatives of the plaintiff in a check to the plaintiff's claim to the disputed matter. However, it does not cause the plaintiff's legal rights as a holder in any way. When it appears that the bank refuses to pay the check in dispute. The plaintiff, who is not in dispute. The plaintiff is not injured by the offense. Act offenses arising from the use of checks. It has no official complaint to prosecute the defendant. The plaintiff has no power to sue.
Supreme Court to 10595/2551.
Person who have right in checks the holder has the right to transfer by delivering a check to the plaintiff by the defendant must have a legal relationship with the defendant, who paid not by Section 918 and Section 989 paragraph one and check it is in dispute. possession of the plaintiff, as held by the plaintiff claims to have a cash redemption of the plaintiff. Against the plaintiff and the defendant does not make the transferee in bad faith. So that the plaintiff was transferred to a bona fide dispute in accordance with Section 5, the plaintiff would be in dispute in accordance with Section 904 and has the right to take out the actual check. Check that the defendant did not dispute the date prescribed by Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one paragraph in dispute is in complete accordance with the law.
The defendant, the defendant's contention that the settlement check made payable to the beach. The agreement shall not apply to cash checks from the bank. Subsequently, the offset between the defendant's help. Then no longer dispute the debt, then the check. The fight against the plaintiff, who by virtue of the individual defendants related to the channel. Which is ever before under Section 916 and Section 989 paragraph one, the law gives the relationship between the payer. Most people who have to struggle up the beach. or the next person who disputes the plaintiff by the terrorism cooperation and transfer of check fraud. The defendant was the defense that the debt is in dispute between the plaintiff did not fight. The fact that the defendant received and signed checks payable to the dispute and the bank refuses to pay the check. The defendant is in default shall be liable for the payment by check to the plaintiff with interest rates of 7.5 percent per year, according to Section 900 paragraph one, Section 914 and Section 989 paragraph one and paragraph 224.
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 in 5778/2550.
Check both the parties to pay a plaintiff or holder. It is in the holder. When the plaintiff is the holder in case both the plaintiff and in disputes between the two. To collect the money from the bank. But the bank refused to pay. The plaintiff, who is in conflict both with the law. Despite the fact that the plaintiff endorsed the check to the bank to dispute the matter, but when I go back in case both in terms of the plaintiff's possession. As the payee. It was a dispute, the plaintiff in both the two lawfully. One under Section 904.
Defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant has no legal relationship between any of the defendants never purchased any goods from the plaintiff the defendant was ordered by the Court to issue two checks payable to the plaintiff and texture. Hand, a payer is not the signature of the defendant. The defendant shall not be liable to the plaintiff if the court that the plaintiff and the defendant is dealing with a real diamond. The transaction is not more than three million baht, like the defendant will be liable only for some three million baht, a diamond was returned to the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant shall not be liable to the full amount of the check to see that the testimony of the defendant. First, the defendant denied that any product not purchased from the plaintiff and not paid out for both parties to the plaintiff to pay the debt. The defendant denies that it owes the plaintiff purchased the product. But back to the defendant that the defendant returned to the plaintiff and some diamonds. If that debt is not more than three million baht, the defendant shall not be liable in full by both parties. Which the defendant accepted that. The defendant purchased the diamond from the plaintiff and ordered to pay in case both the plaintiff, the only defendant liable to pay the check dispute and the only three million baht, according to the number of products purchased from the plaintiff because such a notice. The defendant said that the conflict is obvious. It is not clear as to P.wi.p. Section 177 paragraph two and the defendant are issues that will attest to that as well.
Supreme Court in 5831/2550.
Even in the consignment note the signature of the carrier at the bottom right corner is a VIRGO LINE by LEO TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. AS AGENT FOR THE CARRIER, which translates to the plaintiff, on behalf of the VIRGO LINE carrier, but delivery is only evidence. of the contract of carriage by sea. Not a contract of carriage by sea. And the contract of carriage by sea is not full. The plaintiff was able to witness the result that the plaintiff amend this document of carriage. Marine by the name of the operation of the VIRGO LINE, the trade name or trademark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff used the name in the consignment note to the sender of the facts, listen to that. The plaintiff is the defendant's goods 1 and 2, the Marine is entitled to freight and transportation costs from the defendants 1 and 2.
The third co-defendant, the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 trading business for the purposes of a co-defendant employed the plaintiff as a sales and contact the carrier to pay shipping. And the various operations. And the payment of freight costs to transport by paying by check delivered to the plaintiff when the defendant's third signing is payable in the sixth to be held liable by the body in check and also be liable. As the sender with the 1st and 2nd defendants, the plaintiff hired the defendant attest marine cargo with
Supreme Court in 1169/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, the three joint liability in the dispute by the defendant, 2 and 3, sign the order and the seal of the defendant at one of Appeal Region 5 and the fact the record indicates that the check portion is not. can Charged the defendants 2 and 3, to accept responsibility for damages against the person who holds out as a private judge, the defendant, 2 and 3, with liability in case the defendant to one of the plaintiff and the judge the facts in the indictment did not. with the problem. Civil Procedure Code Section 142.
Supreme Court in 3329/2550.
Defendant ordered to pay out 3 to deliver to the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not bring to the charge. Which the defendant is ordered to pay out 3 to pay the plaintiff or as a security for payment by money transfer. Plaintiff's account in a foreign country. Defendants are liable under the body in check in order to use the money to the plaintiff, who in the first paragraph of Section 900, 914, 989, paragraph one, but payment by check, a bill Debt settlement will end when the bills are paid according to Section 321 paragraph three, when the plaintiff did not bring to the charge three checks from the bank the check. The existing debt stock was suspended. The plaintiff, a creditor would be negligent not to check their own bill, however, for a total payment of $ 1219 when the last time you were paid by the defendant after the defendant backed out of the money paid to a function representing the plaintiff. and function to the defendant to pay the hotel bill totaling Baht 99,177.05 received by the defendants for payment of any debt repayment rather than to the plaintiff under Section 321 to the first paragraph.
Supreme Court in 3100/2550.
The defendant signed a check payable to the dispute. Body check is liable under Section 900 of the first paragraph of the defendants denied liability. The burden of proof falls upon the defendant.
Serve as proof that the defendant will serve as proof the notice. Forbidden to listen to the Civil Procedure Code Section 87 (1) The Court of Appeal Region 1 will serve as proof of the defendant and the judge said he was not listening. Supreme Court has not been diagnosed.
The defendants dispute the debt issue to repay the money borrowed to Thor. It is listed in the defendants who agreed to check on them as you see. Appropriate to charge the defendant to pay the check from the Thor dated checks payable to the dispute is regarded as Thor, who checks by law to act in good faith. Note payable to the actual day to check under Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one shall be the date for payment of checks by the defendant to be dishonest not to fight.
Defendants dispute the debt in order to be liable for Thor Thor, the former owner before the transfer to the plaintiff in the dispute. The check is a check payable to the disputed money to the shareholders. Check the transfer case only by delivering to each other. The plaintiff, who is in dispute with it. The defendant, who paid out no matter who I fight with Thor before it is used as a defense, the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff, and Thor, the former debt obligations in the transference was not in dispute. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff in the dispute in accordance with Section 900 paragraph, 914, 918, 989, paragraph one.
Supreme Court in 8331/2549.
The first defendant to sign a check payable to the defendant at the second sign, which is endorsed by the first paragraph of Section 900 and Section 989 states that persons who sign their checks would be liable under the body in check. When all the defendant's contention that the payment by check and the defendant's second assignment of lease of two commercial units will hit the debt to the plaintiff. The fact that the claims will not be liable for the check. Page attest to the fact that they fall into the two defendants. Attest to the plaintiff that the defendant's second assignment of lease obligations under a commercial hit in the other. It claims only serve as proof that the defendant raised two arguments in the only previous issues, this can attest to the plaintiff did not fall.
The two defendants are responsible for attest I attest that the defendants can not be both payable by check to the plaintiff, then the claims in dispute does not settle the debt by the end of it. Both defendants are liable to the plaintiff by the body in check.
The plaintiff claimed that the document is a copy of the check in front of it. The plaintiff claimed that the original check has been returned to the defendant. Both the defendant objected only that the document is a copy. No objection to that. Original or fake documents or copies not required by Section 125 of P.wi.p. not advised the court that Check the original defendant, both real or not. It held that the plaintiff can not be picked up by any other source P.wi.p. Section 93 (2) a check from the court to hear the testimony of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 5799/2549.
L. purchased fuel from the defendant and the plaintiff's company, HMS Director. Check all four of the dispute, despite the checks issued to buyers. But a check of the defendant and L. together to fuel the company's payment obligations to the plaintiff, not Rama is Rama is a private company who is in dispute. Although the plaintiff, is authorized to participate as a private company, R. plaintiff was not in a position who is in dispute. It is not written to the complainant to prosecute the defendant was competent prosecutor, the plaintiff sued the defendant, the court has no power now.
Supreme Court in 7544/2548.
The four defendants liable under the law in accordance with Section 900 of the defendant's share of set-off payment for principal and interest on loans based on checks that the defendant intends to dispute the debt and the share that the plaintiff claims to be. defendant's debt was offset against the amount of 800,000 baht in debt disputes in court. Attest to the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that defendants had agreed among themselves by the amount of debt. The plaintiff must pay a share of the 1.2 million USD loan to the debt the defendant owed the plaintiff. When the plaintiff returned the check for the amount of debt to net debt to the defendant and the defendant. Share the responsibility to pay the plaintiff. After deduction of the debt it owed the defendant to the plaintiff the amount of debt which the defendant was ordered to pay 759,040 in the fourth edition of the debt against the plaintiff's share to be paid to the defendant to stop it. With netting. The plaintiff has no obligation to pay the defendant's. Held that the defendant claims that the netting is still fighting in the Section 344 stipulates that "any claim to have fought. You claim that I could not netting out "the defendant is entitled to claim a share that is paid to the plaintiff for the netting. Plaintiff does not dispute the check.
Supreme Court in 6305/2548.
In case the defendant an order has been defaced, the word "or bearer" and then write the word "fresh" to the space after the word "pay" would result in the dispute, no name or brand of the recipient. money Or notification that the payment to holders of the Section 988 (4) states and the cross was not the case under Section 899, which is writing the text. Civil and Commercial Code shall be provided in the bill. Words to the effect of the bill. Check the list of disputes which have legal force. Have resulted in disputes not check under Section 987 and Section 910, paragraph one of Article 989, paragraph one, even by banks in refusing to pay the defendant a payer and the defendant 2 The endorsement is not liable under the body in Check it.
Supreme Court in 2784/2548.
The defendant testified that plaintiff and the defendant has no legal relationship to each other. Defendant ordered to pay out settlement to help. To secure help. And the plaintiff made a fraudulent defendant by the plaintiff to bring out the dispute to date and the bill is to ensure that does not show explicitly that the plaintiff terrorism cooperation with Beach. fraud defendants, however. There are no issues of transfer with terrorism cooperation and cheating under Section 916 will attest, when in dispute is the instrument that is transferable to the beach. Who shall have the right to check the dispute to the plaintiff by the defendant for not having a legal relationship with the defendant, either in battle order. paid to shareholders. Initially, the plaintiff must be transferred to a bona fide dispute in accordance with Section 5 the plaintiff shall have the right to take a day out in accordance with the actual settlement check into that. Defendant has not paid into the Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph order the defendant to pay money to check out the dispute is liable to the plaintiff under Section 914.
Supreme Court in 4714/2547.
Section 899 stipulates that "any text which is not provided for in this Code. Is written into the bill. You will find that the text of the bill as one that "the general provisions apply to the total bill. Promissory notes and checks of Section 915 stipulates that "those who paid the bill and endorse anyone any good to write down the definition, which says the following to the manifest, that it is (a) the provisions negate or limit the liability of themselves to the Lord. bills, "which is a provision in the bill is not provided for in the General Provisions. As with Section 899 and Section 985, the provisions of the Promissory Notes Act, Section 915 does not apply to promissory notes. Thus, the three defendants have endorsed bills that No recourse to endorse the text is contrary to Section 983 (2) The promissory note shall be in accordance with Section 899 of the third defendant was not liable under the promissory notes.
Supreme Court in 2940/2547.
A dispute over a crossed check payable to the company for it. Not in the holder. Therefore, and. The Lord. Only to sales contracts and endorsements to check for dispute to the plaintiff. The fact that reduction in the sales contract is made after the company Mon 3 °. Unregistered and registered the company completed the liquidation of Section 1270, paragraph two of the company and. The end. tax to the state. The check from the sales contract is unenforceable under the laws of both the Bank and Sun endorsing signature and company seal it. In that case the plaintiff was a check without endorsing the transfer of power. I shall not do so in accordance with Section 1008 plaintiff received a settlement check was endorsed by the broken line. Plaintiffs who are not lawfully in accordance with Section 904, 905, all three defendants as the payer will not be liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 4768/2543.
The first defendant to the defendant, but only 2 with the plaintiff acted in bad faith with the second defendant had transferred the check to both parties and another to the plaintiff by the terrorism cooperation and cheating. The two defendants did not owe the plaintiff. Plaintiff who is not lawfully Such words are just words, to deny that there is no denying that terrorism cooperation between the profile of fraud, however, that a defendant may present witnesses who can not be traced by the battle. However, notice that the two defendants did not owe the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who was not like The defendant, a fight that the right of the plaintiff that the check was not complete. Which the plaintiff has no right to demand payment as a check against the owner because they do not. Debt because a defendant will claim and attest that they raise as a defense to the plaintiff. Most people today. Not a defense that a defendant has a previous owner that would be contrary to Section 916.
Supreme Court in 3509/2542.
The defendant testified that the defendant money. By check to the marshland to venture into trading by the defendant as the venture capital money. And agree to cancel the loan. Check the debt extinguished. The defendant appealed and the court said. The defendant issued a check in any time. Check does not check the bill and taken into account, it is not raised like that, then by the lower court. Check a negotiable instrument to be reliable during Payer and who he was. When the check to the billing. Will be paid by check. Any provisions which prohibit or restrict the payment will be made, therefore, must be met. Provisions of the law, the defendant is a black line on the day. Such action does not authorize the provisions of the law that made such statements as a result we find one. To check that under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 899 is considered the defendant dated check by check when the plaintiff did not receive a check and take it into account. Plaintiff or the bank. Date in accordance with Section 910 and Section 898 paragraph endorsing the checks signed by the plaintiff shareholders. Must be considered. Guarantee or aval payer under Section 921 and Section 989 of the Aval Aval not by operation of law under section 939 does not have to write it says. The aval is liable to the plaintiff under section 940 b. shall be liable to pay the bills payable for the Products by the plaintiff or the defendant must be aware of and assume obligations. The rape receivables.
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 1084/2542.
Check payable to the defendant disputes the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff, who is in dispute. The check is due. The plaintiff is imported. Plaintiff's account to charge the mother and the bank refuses to pay, it is only to check billing. Instead of relying on the mother's account only. When the plaintiff fails to deliver or transfer any dispute arising out of the mother, but the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who is still in dispute at the time the bank refuses to pay and The victim has the power to prosecute them. The plaintiff is. He checks the dispute. To check the bill at the bank when the bank refuses to pay the check. Check if the plaintiff is injured. To check whether the plaintiff's account to the plaintiff's bill or anyone else's account to charge for it. Just check the details in the account to collect money. Such differences are not differences in the material is. Because the court to dismiss it.
Supreme Court to 250/2541.
Check is a check issued to the holder of the dispute over who was entitled to transfer to a third party and shall be transferable by delivery. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 918 and Section 989 on the plaintiff, as assignee in case of delivery. It is the plaintiff in possession of a check in the payee, the plaintiff is in dispute. By the Court under Section 904 and the second defendant's liability to pay the check payable to dispute it. Check out the dispute is not present in the defendant. 2 is a state that can act on behalf of the defendant, one of which is an entity of Company, the defendant No. 2 was not a member of the defendant to one another, despite the defendant's second sealed the defendant a check dispute, however, accused the two without power. The defendant made the case that a defendant is not bound as a corporate entity. And is not that the defendant first be paid in settlement, so when the accused 2 is the signature on the check case without a statement that the actions of the defendant, a defendant No. 2 shall be liable under the body in check disputes under the Civil. and Commercial Section 900, paragraph one of Article 901.
Supreme Court in 7121/2539.
Defendant No. 1 and No. 2 is authorized checks payable to the Company. Signed check made payable to the plaintiff's case, the debt service. The company and the first defendant but the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 without the seal of the company. It's not that the defendants 1 and 2, did not sign the checks, stating that These companies act on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 must share the liability. Check the text that appears in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 900 901.
Supreme Court in 5998/2537.
Defendant 1 is authorized to act on behalf of the Tor or less. Together with other members, one of the accused at a sign and seal two of the three defendants as a result of the defendant that the defendant 3. The directors of the defendant. Signed a check payable without specifying clearly how to act for another person. So I did not order the defendant to three signed checks as an agent of the defendant that a third defendant would be liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 901 compliance checks.
Supreme Court in 4991/2536.
When it is known that the plaintiff by the defendant disputed issue between the debt must take into account. The transfer of the person who sent it in good faith or not. The defendant can not raise the defense that the check is no debt to the fight, the man had been in dispute, as in our case 2 and case 2, the company accused the first to sign the order and stamp seals. The importance of a defendant who has not registered for use. Therefore not bound by a defendant that the defendant did not hold that an order is signed. But the settlement check signed by several persons. A person may not be a party to the bill that it is possible, but not the full result would not have wound up the liability of others out there who would be liable under the bills under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 902, so the defendant No. 2 was. remain liable under check. Both the defendant and the defendant, the two signed a check payable to the dispute, but that is not liable under check. Even the stamp duty will not be in dispute. The fact that the defendant received. 2 checks payable to the dispute.
Supreme Court in 5250/2533.
Check the phone has been an exhaustive list. Despite the recorded message on the back of the check and was defaced before the plaintiff received. Such statements would not affect checks. And held that the plaintiff was not checked by the fraud or gross negligence. Plaintiff is a bank check from the customer to pay the normal trade. I must have checked the source or payer as a check. It's not that the plaintiff had fraudulently terrorism cooperation with our customers. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff as a full body check by law.
Supreme Court in 5035/2528.
Current deposit agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that Payments shall be payable by April. And together with the province. The plaintiff is the company's seal. Check both the parties. And signature. As the counterfeit check and then hand it is invalidated. It's only May. Shall be the sole defendant to pay the check. Such checks would not make it out to be wrong. Current account deposits, such that f. Signed the check is not a plaintiff in the base. The need to cut to make up a fake sign up as a defense when they do not have to. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1006 of the defendant to pay the check. The plaintiff, who paid fake signature. Serve as proof that the defendant did not prove that. The plaintiff has made a false or fraudulent actions have been. The defendant is not entitled to the amount of the check was paid to current accounts receivable to the defendant and the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the defendant has the right to withdraw the item is defective.
The plaintiff sued the defendant's breach of contract, deposit and current accounts. Defendant that the defendant pay the money back to the plaintiff in the payer's signature. Forged signatures. Then put that amount into a savings account or current account. The plaintiff is the debtor. If no such law otherwise. Age was a period of ten years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164 in December 2518 and informed the plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Last month, in May 2525 did not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Supreme Court in 422/2521.
He notes that would pay for a ticket to that cause. Aval released from liability. The aval is bound to be the same person whom they insure. As the initial loans as the ticket. And not as a guarantor under the general rules on the guarantee.
Aval check payable to the holder of a debt repayment of promissory notes. Money to get the debt under the promissory note. And would cause a break down of a minimalistic design.
Section 899 of the text which is not provided for in this Code. Is written into the bill. You will then find that the message is one of the bills are not.
Section 900 who have signed their bills. Body is liable under the bill.
If the only sign of any such mark or fingerprints on it as a sign that bill soon. Even if the witnesses sign it. The result is that you sign the bill does not.
Section 901 if the person who signed their bills. It is not a statement that a person acting on behalf of another gem. That person would be liable under the bill.
Section 902 of the bills signed by several persons. A person may not be a party to the bill at all. Or is it not a gem. You know that there are not wound up the liability of third parties which are liable under the bill.
Section 903 of the money bills. You shall not give relief.
Section 904 which means that a person who is in possession of bills. The base is a beneficiary. Or the endorsement. If a bill payable to bearer, it is the most common.
Section 905 within the provisions of Section 1008 who was in possession of bills. If it appears to the right by endorsing the continuous Even if the endorsement is the endorsement of the floating matter. You shall be deemed to be lawfully When the float has been endorsed by the other party endorsements. You are the person who signed the biggest endorsement of them. The bill, which has been endorsed by the float. The endorsement on the cross, then you are treated as not having it.
If any person should be free exchange of possession. You know who has the rights to their tickets based on how those in the preceding paragraph. I do not need to take notes. Unless obtained by fraud. Or with serious negligence.
The text in this paragraph. Shall apply to all holders of bills payable to holders as well.
Section 906 that the parties were before it, including the payer. Or issuing bills, and endorsed by the former.
Section 907 was no endorsement on the bill, which will continue to remember you are authorized to remove the paper labels attached to the bill known as the counterfoil The bills are part of it.
Endorsement of the application period for the first time to write notes on what was on the cards for me.
Supreme Court in 2545/2553.
This case was referred to a debt repayment due to a breach of contract, bills discounted. The plaintiff sued the bank debt in the case of a call to pay by check as payment. The different types of transactions. The liability of the defendant is subject to the agreement to sell the bills. When the bank refused to cash the check. Plaintiff to bring an action against the Bank, there have been a compromise agreement by the Bank loan debt to the plaintiff, the Bank will pay the debt to the plaintiff until the amount is only a liability in the case of the Bank. The plaintiff sued to block the only But in the sales contracts, bills discounted. Plaintiffs prefer to use the money is paid back each time to pay the interest that accrued before The rest is applied towards payment of principal payable in respect of each tranche in accordance with Section 329, first paragraph.
Supreme Court in 3319/2552.
The defendant signed a check payable to dispute the amount of 200,000 baht to the plaintiff, check to be paid. The bank the check was refused payment by arguing that not enough money in the account to pay. The decision by the Supreme Court has required that the Plaintiffs. The defendant will be liable to the plaintiff as a number. The Court of Appeal Region 3 that this case ruled that the defendant signed a check payable to the plaintiff, but disputed the amount of 200,000 baht to 100,000 baht debt to the defendant and the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, only 100,000 of the defendant's claim that by listening. If the defendant is liable, it shall order a credit check, MP checks each second to 50,000 baht and 100,000 baht, the defendant's signature endorsing the check, the two only. The defendant requested the court to order the book, cash account of the plaintiff to show a list of the money to pay all of the days between September 17, 2539 until July 15, 2540, and between 1. June 2543 until August 30, 2543, the documents in the possession of the plaintiff's evidence. To prove the claim of the defendant but the plaintiff failed to submit such documents to the court. Appeal Region 3 has ruled that the plaintiff did not comply with the order of the court documents, without reasonable cause. The fact of the defendant's claim that the defendant's debt to the plaintiff's acceptance of up to 100,000 baht Joe P.wi.p. provisions of Section 123 shall be liable to the plaintiff by the defendant is in dispute, it is only 100,000. The presumption under Section 123 shall not apply to such cases. The defendant claims that the original documents in the possession of the plaintiff, the defendant will be referred to as evidence must be evidence that the witnesses could prove the key issues in directly. This case can serve as proof of the defendant, who is from that. Check payable to the defendant disputes the plaintiff in the year 2541, the documentary evidence that the defendant asked the court from the plaintiff. The book, cash account of the plaintiff during the period September 17, 2539 until July 25, 2540, and during the period June 1, 2543 to August 13, 2543, not in the length of time a defendant claims to have paid in settlement to the plaintiff, so. Although the defendant requested and the defendant can prove that any checks are cut out to sell to Joe, or there is evidence that the defendant owed the plaintiff the amount. It is important to have clear evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant signed a check payable to the plaintiff to dispute the amount of Baht 200,000 per claimant, which is like a check, the check to the bank to cash the check but the bank refused to pay. Defendants are liable under the body of the check in accordance with Section 900 paragraph one.
Supreme Court to 521/2552.
The Court determined that the dispute. In dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant both. The defendants, one of the debt or not. The plaintiff, who checked into the possession of a lawfully or not. The fact that the Court of Appeal hearing. Plaintiff's attorney to the defendant, the two contracts, land of the plaintiff and the building of the defendant, a defendant in a settlement of the land to the defendant, two complete, but accused the two did not get the money remaining to be delivered. The plaintiff accused the two proposed sale of land and the wife of defendant No. 2 for the defendant, a defendant, an issue disputed the fact that two defendants, the two endorsements in dispute to be given to the plaintiff to pay for that part. to which the Court of Appeal has ruled that in disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant both. Or the defendant one debt to each other. And receive a check from the plaintiff was in possession as owner by law. Issues and disputes. The Court of Appeal has ruled on the issue continued. Both defendants are jointly liable to pay by check to the plaintiff or not. Lopez has not ruled on the issue beyond dispute that the Court of Appeal that the plaintiff was ever in conflict with the law. It further ruled that the defendant must both be jointly liable to the plaintiff to pay by check or by Section 900.
Defendant signed a check payable to the settlement of disputes, the second wife of the defendant to the second defendant in a dispute between the two defendants with the same debt. When the defendant second signature endorsing the check was delivered to the disputed land to the plaintiff to pay the second defendant owed the plaintiff existed. The plaintiff, who is in conflict with the law. The two defendants who sign the checks would be liable under the dispute settlement body in check, and the defendant is being sued in a check data. He may struggle to find a defense to a personal relationship between the payer or who they were before, except that the transfer will not have to cheat with terrorism cooperation.
Supreme Court in 9384/2552.
Assigned to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's money to bail Sat g Court. The defendant received money from the MP to take action when the case reached the Court of First Instance ordered the insurance money payable by the bank district, a defendant is the payee. Defendants who are in a position in the money base is expected to submit a check to the bank to cash his check only. The defendant shall be used to pay the bank the check is not the defendant received money or property on which the defendant had a duty to deliver to the plaintiff which is in accordance with Section 810 directly. defendant fails to pay such money to the plaintiff. It is that the plaintiff is entitled to payment of the property of the defendant. Including money or other property. That the defendant owed to such third parties in accordance with Section 214 the plaintiff had no right to compel the defendant to withdraw from the bank the check given to the plaintiff. It also asked the banks, which are used by third parties in such cases the plaintiff does not.
The plaintiff's complaint has been filed, the defendant forced to withdraw by check payable to the plaintiff the amount of 70,000 Baht can be considered a complaint seeking to force the defendant to pay a debt payment. It can not be forced to act against the defendant. The court also sentenced the defendant to the plaintiff for such payments.
Supreme Court in 5526/2552.
Any person who is in the law would be considered under Section 904, which refers to persons who are in possession of the bills as a receiver or receiver and is endorsing a bill payable to bearer. Holders, it is the holder as well, so the fact that the bank refused to pay the check. He is in dispute in the plaintiff's right to Wed am and Mon, which is as a person, not three. The third person, all three are related, as representatives of the plaintiff in a check to the plaintiff's claim to the disputed matter. However, it does not cause the plaintiff's legal rights as a holder in any way. When it appears that the bank refuses to pay the check in dispute. The plaintiff, who is not in dispute. The plaintiff is not injured by the offense. Act offenses arising from the use of checks. It has no official complaint to prosecute the defendant. The plaintiff has no power to sue.
Supreme Court to 10595/2551.
Person who have right in checks the holder has the right to transfer by delivering a check to the plaintiff by the defendant must have a legal relationship with the defendant, who paid not by Section 918 and Section 989 paragraph one and check it is in dispute. possession of the plaintiff, as held by the plaintiff claims to have a cash redemption of the plaintiff. Against the plaintiff and the defendant does not make the transferee in bad faith. So that the plaintiff was transferred to a bona fide dispute in accordance with Section 5, the plaintiff would be in dispute in accordance with Section 904 and has the right to take out the actual check. Check that the defendant did not dispute the date prescribed by Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one paragraph in dispute is in complete accordance with the law.
The defendant, the defendant's contention that the settlement check made payable to the beach. The agreement shall not apply to cash checks from the bank. Subsequently, the offset between the defendant's help. Then no longer dispute the debt, then the check. The fight against the plaintiff, who by virtue of the individual defendants related to the channel. Which is ever before under Section 916 and Section 989 paragraph one, the law gives the relationship between the payer. Most people who have to struggle up the beach. or the next person who disputes the plaintiff by the terrorism cooperation and transfer of check fraud. The defendant was the defense that the debt is in dispute between the plaintiff did not fight. The fact that the defendant received and signed checks payable to the dispute and the bank refuses to pay the check. The defendant is in default shall be liable for the payment by check to the plaintiff with interest rates of 7.5 percent per year, according to Section 900 paragraph one, Section 914 and Section 989 paragraph one and paragraph 224.
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 in 5778/2550.
Check both the parties to pay a plaintiff or holder. It is in the holder. When the plaintiff is the holder in case both the plaintiff and in disputes between the two. To collect the money from the bank. But the bank refused to pay. The plaintiff, who is in conflict both with the law. Despite the fact that the plaintiff endorsed the check to the bank to dispute the matter, but when I go back in case both in terms of the plaintiff's possession. As the payee. It was a dispute, the plaintiff in both the two lawfully. One under Section 904.
Defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant has no legal relationship between any of the defendants never purchased any goods from the plaintiff the defendant was ordered by the Court to issue two checks payable to the plaintiff and texture. Hand, a payer is not the signature of the defendant. The defendant shall not be liable to the plaintiff if the court that the plaintiff and the defendant is dealing with a real diamond. The transaction is not more than three million baht, like the defendant will be liable only for some three million baht, a diamond was returned to the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant shall not be liable to the full amount of the check to see that the testimony of the defendant. First, the defendant denied that any product not purchased from the plaintiff and not paid out for both parties to the plaintiff to pay the debt. The defendant denies that it owes the plaintiff purchased the product. But back to the defendant that the defendant returned to the plaintiff and some diamonds. If that debt is not more than three million baht, the defendant shall not be liable in full by both parties. Which the defendant accepted that. The defendant purchased the diamond from the plaintiff and ordered to pay in case both the plaintiff, the only defendant liable to pay the check dispute and the only three million baht, according to the number of products purchased from the plaintiff because such a notice. The defendant said that the conflict is obvious. It is not clear as to P.wi.p. Section 177 paragraph two and the defendant are issues that will attest to that as well.
Supreme Court in 5831/2550.
Even in the consignment note the signature of the carrier at the bottom right corner is a VIRGO LINE by LEO TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. AS AGENT FOR THE CARRIER, which translates to the plaintiff, on behalf of the VIRGO LINE carrier, but delivery is only evidence. of the contract of carriage by sea. Not a contract of carriage by sea. And the contract of carriage by sea is not full. The plaintiff was able to witness the result that the plaintiff amend this document of carriage. Marine by the name of the operation of the VIRGO LINE, the trade name or trademark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff used the name in the consignment note to the sender of the facts, listen to that. The plaintiff is the defendant's goods 1 and 2, the Marine is entitled to freight and transportation costs from the defendants 1 and 2.
The third co-defendant, the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 trading business for the purposes of a co-defendant employed the plaintiff as a sales and contact the carrier to pay shipping. And the various operations. And the payment of freight costs to transport by paying by check delivered to the plaintiff when the defendant's third signing is payable in the sixth to be held liable by the body in check and also be liable. As the sender with the 1st and 2nd defendants, the plaintiff hired the defendant attest marine cargo with
Supreme Court in 1169/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, the three joint liability in the dispute by the defendant, 2 and 3, sign the order and the seal of the defendant at one of Appeal Region 5 and the fact the record indicates that the check portion is not. can Charged the defendants 2 and 3, to accept responsibility for damages against the person who holds out as a private judge, the defendant, 2 and 3, with liability in case the defendant to one of the plaintiff and the judge the facts in the indictment did not. with the problem. Civil Procedure Code Section 142.
Supreme Court in 3329/2550.
Defendant ordered to pay out 3 to deliver to the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not bring to the charge. Which the defendant is ordered to pay out 3 to pay the plaintiff or as a security for payment by money transfer. Plaintiff's account in a foreign country. Defendants are liable under the body in check in order to use the money to the plaintiff, who in the first paragraph of Section 900, 914, 989, paragraph one, but payment by check, a bill Debt settlement will end when the bills are paid according to Section 321 paragraph three, when the plaintiff did not bring to the charge three checks from the bank the check. The existing debt stock was suspended. The plaintiff, a creditor would be negligent not to check their own bill, however, for a total payment of $ 1219 when the last time you were paid by the defendant after the defendant backed out of the money paid to a function representing the plaintiff. and function to the defendant to pay the hotel bill totaling Baht 99,177.05 received by the defendants for payment of any debt repayment rather than to the plaintiff under Section 321 to the first paragraph.
Supreme Court in 3100/2550.
The defendant signed a check payable to the dispute. Body check is liable under Section 900 of the first paragraph of the defendants denied liability. The burden of proof falls upon the defendant.
Serve as proof that the defendant will serve as proof the notice. Forbidden to listen to the Civil Procedure Code Section 87 (1) The Court of Appeal Region 1 will serve as proof of the defendant and the judge said he was not listening. Supreme Court has not been diagnosed.
The defendants dispute the debt issue to repay the money borrowed to Thor. It is listed in the defendants who agreed to check on them as you see. Appropriate to charge the defendant to pay the check from the Thor dated checks payable to the dispute is regarded as Thor, who checks by law to act in good faith. Note payable to the actual day to check under Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one shall be the date for payment of checks by the defendant to be dishonest not to fight.
Defendants dispute the debt in order to be liable for Thor Thor, the former owner before the transfer to the plaintiff in the dispute. The check is a check payable to the disputed money to the shareholders. Check the transfer case only by delivering to each other. The plaintiff, who is in dispute with it. The defendant, who paid out no matter who I fight with Thor before it is used as a defense, the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff, and Thor, the former debt obligations in the transference was not in dispute. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff in the dispute in accordance with Section 900 paragraph, 914, 918, 989, paragraph one.
Supreme Court in 8331/2549.
The first defendant to sign a check payable to the defendant at the second sign, which is endorsed by the first paragraph of Section 900 and Section 989 states that persons who sign their checks would be liable under the body in check. When all the defendant's contention that the payment by check and the defendant's second assignment of lease of two commercial units will hit the debt to the plaintiff. The fact that the claims will not be liable for the check. Page attest to the fact that they fall into the two defendants. Attest to the plaintiff that the defendant's second assignment of lease obligations under a commercial hit in the other. It claims only serve as proof that the defendant raised two arguments in the only previous issues, this can attest to the plaintiff did not fall.
The two defendants are responsible for attest I attest that the defendants can not be both payable by check to the plaintiff, then the claims in dispute does not settle the debt by the end of it. Both defendants are liable to the plaintiff by the body in check.
The plaintiff claimed that the document is a copy of the check in front of it. The plaintiff claimed that the original check has been returned to the defendant. Both the defendant objected only that the document is a copy. No objection to that. Original or fake documents or copies not required by Section 125 of P.wi.p. not advised the court that Check the original defendant, both real or not. It held that the plaintiff can not be picked up by any other source P.wi.p. Section 93 (2) a check from the court to hear the testimony of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 5799/2549.
L. purchased fuel from the defendant and the plaintiff's company, HMS Director. Check all four of the dispute, despite the checks issued to buyers. But a check of the defendant and L. together to fuel the company's payment obligations to the plaintiff, not Rama is Rama is a private company who is in dispute. Although the plaintiff, is authorized to participate as a private company, R. plaintiff was not in a position who is in dispute. It is not written to the complainant to prosecute the defendant was competent prosecutor, the plaintiff sued the defendant, the court has no power now.
Supreme Court in 7544/2548.
The four defendants liable under the law in accordance with Section 900 of the defendant's share of set-off payment for principal and interest on loans based on checks that the defendant intends to dispute the debt and the share that the plaintiff claims to be. defendant's debt was offset against the amount of 800,000 baht in debt disputes in court. Attest to the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that defendants had agreed among themselves by the amount of debt. The plaintiff must pay a share of the 1.2 million USD loan to the debt the defendant owed the plaintiff. When the plaintiff returned the check for the amount of debt to net debt to the defendant and the defendant. Share the responsibility to pay the plaintiff. After deduction of the debt it owed the defendant to the plaintiff the amount of debt which the defendant was ordered to pay 759,040 in the fourth edition of the debt against the plaintiff's share to be paid to the defendant to stop it. With netting. The plaintiff has no obligation to pay the defendant's. Held that the defendant claims that the netting is still fighting in the Section 344 stipulates that "any claim to have fought. You claim that I could not netting out "the defendant is entitled to claim a share that is paid to the plaintiff for the netting. Plaintiff does not dispute the check.
Supreme Court in 6305/2548.
In case the defendant an order has been defaced, the word "or bearer" and then write the word "fresh" to the space after the word "pay" would result in the dispute, no name or brand of the recipient. money Or notification that the payment to holders of the Section 988 (4) states and the cross was not the case under Section 899, which is writing the text. Civil and Commercial Code shall be provided in the bill. Words to the effect of the bill. Check the list of disputes which have legal force. Have resulted in disputes not check under Section 987 and Section 910, paragraph one of Article 989, paragraph one, even by banks in refusing to pay the defendant a payer and the defendant 2 The endorsement is not liable under the body in Check it.
Supreme Court in 2784/2548.
The defendant testified that plaintiff and the defendant has no legal relationship to each other. Defendant ordered to pay out settlement to help. To secure help. And the plaintiff made a fraudulent defendant by the plaintiff to bring out the dispute to date and the bill is to ensure that does not show explicitly that the plaintiff terrorism cooperation with Beach. fraud defendants, however. There are no issues of transfer with terrorism cooperation and cheating under Section 916 will attest, when in dispute is the instrument that is transferable to the beach. Who shall have the right to check the dispute to the plaintiff by the defendant for not having a legal relationship with the defendant, either in battle order. paid to shareholders. Initially, the plaintiff must be transferred to a bona fide dispute in accordance with Section 5 the plaintiff shall have the right to take a day out in accordance with the actual settlement check into that. Defendant has not paid into the Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph order the defendant to pay money to check out the dispute is liable to the plaintiff under Section 914.
Supreme Court in 4714/2547.
Section 899 stipulates that "any text which is not provided for in this Code. Is written into the bill. You will find that the text of the bill as one that "the general provisions apply to the total bill. Promissory notes and checks of Section 915 stipulates that "those who paid the bill and endorse anyone any good to write down the definition, which says the following to the manifest, that it is (a) the provisions negate or limit the liability of themselves to the Lord. bills, "which is a provision in the bill is not provided for in the General Provisions. As with Section 899 and Section 985, the provisions of the Promissory Notes Act, Section 915 does not apply to promissory notes. Thus, the three defendants have endorsed bills that No recourse to endorse the text is contrary to Section 983 (2) The promissory note shall be in accordance with Section 899 of the third defendant was not liable under the promissory notes.
Supreme Court in 2940/2547.
A dispute over a crossed check payable to the company for it. Not in the holder. Therefore, and. The Lord. Only to sales contracts and endorsements to check for dispute to the plaintiff. The fact that reduction in the sales contract is made after the company Mon 3 °. Unregistered and registered the company completed the liquidation of Section 1270, paragraph two of the company and. The end. tax to the state. The check from the sales contract is unenforceable under the laws of both the Bank and Sun endorsing signature and company seal it. In that case the plaintiff was a check without endorsing the transfer of power. I shall not do so in accordance with Section 1008 plaintiff received a settlement check was endorsed by the broken line. Plaintiffs who are not lawfully in accordance with Section 904, 905, all three defendants as the payer will not be liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 4768/2543.
The first defendant to the defendant, but only 2 with the plaintiff acted in bad faith with the second defendant had transferred the check to both parties and another to the plaintiff by the terrorism cooperation and cheating. The two defendants did not owe the plaintiff. Plaintiff who is not lawfully Such words are just words, to deny that there is no denying that terrorism cooperation between the profile of fraud, however, that a defendant may present witnesses who can not be traced by the battle. However, notice that the two defendants did not owe the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who was not like The defendant, a fight that the right of the plaintiff that the check was not complete. Which the plaintiff has no right to demand payment as a check against the owner because they do not. Debt because a defendant will claim and attest that they raise as a defense to the plaintiff. Most people today. Not a defense that a defendant has a previous owner that would be contrary to Section 916.
Supreme Court in 3509/2542.
The defendant testified that the defendant money. By check to the marshland to venture into trading by the defendant as the venture capital money. And agree to cancel the loan. Check the debt extinguished. The defendant appealed and the court said. The defendant issued a check in any time. Check does not check the bill and taken into account, it is not raised like that, then by the lower court. Check a negotiable instrument to be reliable during Payer and who he was. When the check to the billing. Will be paid by check. Any provisions which prohibit or restrict the payment will be made, therefore, must be met. Provisions of the law, the defendant is a black line on the day. Such action does not authorize the provisions of the law that made such statements as a result we find one. To check that under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 899 is considered the defendant dated check by check when the plaintiff did not receive a check and take it into account. Plaintiff or the bank. Date in accordance with Section 910 and Section 898 paragraph endorsing the checks signed by the plaintiff shareholders. Must be considered. Guarantee or aval payer under Section 921 and Section 989 of the Aval Aval not by operation of law under section 939 does not have to write it says. The aval is liable to the plaintiff under section 940 b. shall be liable to pay the bills payable for the Products by the plaintiff or the defendant must be aware of and assume obligations. The rape receivables.
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 1084/2542.
Check payable to the defendant disputes the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff, who is in dispute. The check is due. The plaintiff is imported. Plaintiff's account to charge the mother and the bank refuses to pay, it is only to check billing. Instead of relying on the mother's account only. When the plaintiff fails to deliver or transfer any dispute arising out of the mother, but the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who is still in dispute at the time the bank refuses to pay and The victim has the power to prosecute them. The plaintiff is. He checks the dispute. To check the bill at the bank when the bank refuses to pay the check. Check if the plaintiff is injured. To check whether the plaintiff's account to the plaintiff's bill or anyone else's account to charge for it. Just check the details in the account to collect money. Such differences are not differences in the material is. Because the court to dismiss it.
Supreme Court to 250/2541.
Check is a check issued to the holder of the dispute over who was entitled to transfer to a third party and shall be transferable by delivery. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 918 and Section 989 on the plaintiff, as assignee in case of delivery. It is the plaintiff in possession of a check in the payee, the plaintiff is in dispute. By the Court under Section 904 and the second defendant's liability to pay the check payable to dispute it. Check out the dispute is not present in the defendant. 2 is a state that can act on behalf of the defendant, one of which is an entity of Company, the defendant No. 2 was not a member of the defendant to one another, despite the defendant's second sealed the defendant a check dispute, however, accused the two without power. The defendant made the case that a defendant is not bound as a corporate entity. And is not that the defendant first be paid in settlement, so when the accused 2 is the signature on the check case without a statement that the actions of the defendant, a defendant No. 2 shall be liable under the body in check disputes under the Civil. and Commercial Section 900, paragraph one of Article 901.
Supreme Court in 7121/2539.
Defendant No. 1 and No. 2 is authorized checks payable to the Company. Signed check made payable to the plaintiff's case, the debt service. The company and the first defendant but the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 without the seal of the company. It's not that the defendants 1 and 2, did not sign the checks, stating that These companies act on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 must share the liability. Check the text that appears in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 900 901.
Supreme Court in 5998/2537.
Defendant 1 is authorized to act on behalf of the Tor or less. Together with other members, one of the accused at a sign and seal two of the three defendants as a result of the defendant that the defendant 3. The directors of the defendant. Signed a check payable without specifying clearly how to act for another person. So I did not order the defendant to three signed checks as an agent of the defendant that a third defendant would be liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 901 compliance checks.
Supreme Court in 4991/2536.
When it is known that the plaintiff by the defendant disputed issue between the debt must take into account. The transfer of the person who sent it in good faith or not. The defendant can not raise the defense that the check is no debt to the fight, the man had been in dispute, as in our case 2 and case 2, the company accused the first to sign the order and stamp seals. The importance of a defendant who has not registered for use. Therefore not bound by a defendant that the defendant did not hold that an order is signed. But the settlement check signed by several persons. A person may not be a party to the bill that it is possible, but not the full result would not have wound up the liability of others out there who would be liable under the bills under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 902, so the defendant No. 2 was. remain liable under check. Both the defendant and the defendant, the two signed a check payable to the dispute, but that is not liable under check. Even the stamp duty will not be in dispute. The fact that the defendant received. 2 checks payable to the dispute.
Supreme Court in 5250/2533.
Check the phone has been an exhaustive list. Despite the recorded message on the back of the check and was defaced before the plaintiff received. Such statements would not affect checks. And held that the plaintiff was not checked by the fraud or gross negligence. Plaintiff is a bank check from the customer to pay the normal trade. I must have checked the source or payer as a check. It's not that the plaintiff had fraudulently terrorism cooperation with our customers. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff as a full body check by law.
Supreme Court in 5035/2528.
Current deposit agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that Payments shall be payable by April. And together with the province. The plaintiff is the company's seal. Check both the parties. And signature. As the counterfeit check and then hand it is invalidated. It's only May. Shall be the sole defendant to pay the check. Such checks would not make it out to be wrong. Current account deposits, such that f. Signed the check is not a plaintiff in the base. The need to cut to make up a fake sign up as a defense when they do not have to. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1006 of the defendant to pay the check. The plaintiff, who paid fake signature. Serve as proof that the defendant did not prove that. The plaintiff has made a false or fraudulent actions have been. The defendant is not entitled to the amount of the check was paid to current accounts receivable to the defendant and the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the defendant has the right to withdraw the item is defective.
The plaintiff sued the defendant's breach of contract, deposit and current accounts. Defendant that the defendant pay the money back to the plaintiff in the payer's signature. Forged signatures. Then put that amount into a savings account or current account. The plaintiff is the debtor. If no such law otherwise. Age was a period of ten years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164 in December 2518 and informed the plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Last month, in May 2525 did not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Supreme Court in 422/2521.
He notes that would pay for a ticket to that cause. Aval released from liability. The aval is bound to be the same person whom they insure. As the initial loans as the ticket. And not as a guarantor under the general rules on the guarantee.
Aval check payable to the holder of a debt repayment of promissory notes. Money to get the debt under the promissory note. And would cause a break down of a minimalistic design.
