Section 845 any person who agrees to give the reward to the broker to suggest that it has entered into a contract. I managed to do the same. That person will be responsible for the pension promises it made when it was the result of a commission to suggest or to manage it. If the promises made to the conditions imposed by the terms gem. He claims that the pension commission, unless such conditions are also not successful.
Commission is entitled to receive compensation at the expense of the interest when it was agreed that this needs to be enforced even if a contract is not done successfully.
Section 846 is a business which has been assigned to the commission. It is expected that circumstances will soon make it to the pension, you shall be deemed to have tacitly agreed that the pension commission.
Brokerages, if not the number together. You shall be deemed to have agreed a number of traditionally
Section 847 if the broker or to any third party with it. Or has been committed, but the public so that the pension should not be a broker who acts in good faith from its admitted violation of the act soon. You may find that the commission is entitled to receive pension or compensation expenses to shareholders.
Section 848 of the Commission shall not be liable to pay under the contract, which has done well because he is the media. Unless he does not know the name of one party to another.
Section 849 of the receipt or payment shall be payable under the contract. You will be presumed that the broker has no authority to accept on behalf of a party.
Supreme Court in 7550/2550.
All five plaintiffs had agreed to authorize the sale of land about five conversions. The plaintiff had sold land to the Sun, but to contact the complainant to inspect the land and serve as proof that the Sun with Sun and the five defendants agreed to contracts with the plaintiff at the home of the Sun sign as a witness in the contract. With the unbelievable. There is no evidence that plaintiff's contract claims are expressed. The testimony was only thinking that the plaintiff still has not run successfully. The defendant admitted that plaintiff did not contact the MP and the five defendants on this land. The fact is that the five defendants attest to by the evidence as a witness. Supporting documentation that the district, the son-in-law that a defendant is to contact your MP by MP to claim that there is no money to buy plots of land all five of the five defendants. However, if the land was divided between investment and profit from it can be done. Agreement that the land was divided between investment and profit. The new agreement and the five defendants have to find a consultant. And decide later whether to accept a new offer or not. Suggest that the plaintiff show that the five defendants to sell land to the MP was not successful because there is no money to buy a Sat. Agreed to take the land into a joint venture with Sun's share of profits later. The purpose of the five defendants are not relevant to the plaintiff and not on. The original purpose. Because the investment is the land of the five defendants to attend the Sat and Sun is managed by the five defendants joined the company's stock is owned by B of S that is. The new The new joint venture agreement with Sun will not be held that the defendant has successfully landed five sales. To suggest the plaintiff. But a change in land sales in new ways. That, in fact, to show that all five defendants were aware that Sun has filed a fraud case, all five of the five plots of land from the B and S were allowed to return to the land and the court sentenced five of the block. The fifth defendant. The fact is I do not suggest that the plaintiff can make sale of all five defendants. Successfully sued the purpose. The plaintiff is not entitled to a commission of five defendants agreed.
Supreme Court in 5335/2550.
The book is simply written request to reserve the land only. The contract between the plaintiff to buy and to sell to buyers are not doing well. Results suggest that as an agent or manager of the plaintiff does not arise. The plaintiff has no right to claim the reward of a commission from the defendant under Section 845.
Supreme Court in 5604/2548.
According to the commission the defendant agrees to pay commission to the plaintiff in two cases in the first case under Article 3 The plaintiffs suggest that the defendants sold a commercial building at a price not less than the room at 6.5 million baht, the defendant either agrees to pay a commission per room 300,000 Baht In the second case, under Article 4, if the plaintiff can suggest to the defendant for a commercial building at a higher price than that specified in Article 3 had both agreed to an amount in excess of the plaintiff when the plaintiff suggest that the defendants sold their stories. Room S. 9 and A.. 10 is the price the plaintiff would be entitled to a commission per room is 300,000 baht and the plaintiffs suggest that the defendants sold Commercial Building Room A-2., El. 6 to significant 8 in the prices higher than specified. The plaintiff shall be entitled to receive commissions suggest that the two defendants to sell their stories. At a price not less than that prescribed under Article 3, and is entitled to the money could suggest that the two defendants in a high price. Than required under Article 4 as well.
Supreme Court in 1804 - 1805/2546.
Joint venture between the plaintiff and the defendant's commission is an agreement of collaboration. Both parties to the land and the benefits are mutual. Be done only upon request. Nothing to me that if the defendant knew that the two plaintiffs who are not brokers. Purchase agreement will not do business as a broker for sure. The plaintiffs suggest that both the B and F entered into a sale transaction is successful. Behavior that the parties did not focus on the subject, the plaintiff must both be. Brokerage party. Joint venture agreement, the commission is not caused by the plaintiff, the two shows. The defendant's fraud will become void. Defendants are liable under a contract with the plaintiff's business as a broker.
For those defendants, including four people who sign a contract with a broker is not acting. Mr. realities. But the commission said the agreement was made because it is our intention to spread the tax base B and the defendant will have to settle for less should be considered. Excess money lands in which the defendant is a recipient of B must be allocated to the plaintiff the benefit of both parties as joint broker. When the defendant to the plaintiff are both The defendant's breach of its commission.
Supreme Court in 4362/2545.
Plaintiff's initial request to purchase land from the defendants 1 and negotiations with relatives of the defendant at a time, as well as to meet at home mother, the defendant No. 1 on the plaintiff to sell the land to the Company. The officials of the company. as well as the plaintiff had come to see the land to be traded. All the officers of the Company.'s Agreement to buy and sell land on both sides and the defendant's listed companies. Land that is successful. It caused the plaintiff to suggest the two sides entered into a contract. The plaintiff is the operator who has not known since the beginning of the Company. The defendant did not know the other one with the land owner was required to negotiate with landowners who would want to work. The advantage is that it is not the commission. If the plaintiff did not return a commission to negotiate the first contact. Any subsequent action will not occur. And the Company. The prohibition not to get the Sun or the commission of a defendant, it is only the Company. The Sun is not about the plaintiff. And that the plaintiff has not agreed to terminate the contract with the commission to deny a defendant a defendant fails to pay the commission, the plaintiff has not.
Supreme Court in 4352/2545.
Contact with the defendant and the plaintiff, and 4 plots of land ownership, rental and sale of such land. The duration of the talks together using the house as a place to meet defendant's mother, Rama, and Rama was always involved with the negotiations. Sometimes even the defendant does not, however, Rama is the captive manager to lead the contract, so any agreement in the framework of the lease or purchase land for the defendant that the defendant had indeed seen as the default dummy R. representative in negotiations with the plaintiff. The land owner agrees to rent and buy 4 plots of land on the commission as part of the agreement. Even with no evidence as to the defendant and the defendant shall be binding on the commission. And the land rent exceeds the cost to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court to 991/2545.
The defendant made the plaintiff's agent in trading ties between the plaintiff and the defendant is bound in As a principal agent, which has no specific law on the statute. The age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 of the defendant ordered the plaintiff to sell the 10,000 shares to 20,000 shares, however, the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant money to buy all the money the defendant received. for over two hundred thousand pieces of it. The case that the defendant pay the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant beyond the amount that the defendant ordered the defendant to sell the excess to be refunded with interest at a rate of 7.5 percent per year from the date of default as to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 3349/2542.
Plaintiff to provide the buyer's contract with the defendant. The plaintiff by the defendant to charge 1.5 percent of the sales contract is USD 7,470,604.95 for the pay period is 3, so when the defendant pay the plaintiff the same period. The defendant must be liable to pay the second installment and the remaining third. Even later, the seller will agree to change the contract. Buyer by reducing sales to anyone. I do not recall the defendant's liability must be paid in full. It is considered that the contracts are successful because of the plaintiff. Channel or managed.
Supreme Court in 6446/2540.
The land purchase agreement between the defendant seller, buyer, I said. Defendant to the plaintiff as a broker or agent to sell the land to a company. Not. Any part of the land. The defendant sold to the Company. Was. Defendant committed to the commission to the plaintiff $ 20,000 per acre of land to every agreement is a special part of the Remuneration Committee. Separately from the agreement, the pension commission is 3 percent, provided that the defendant pay the plaintiff at a rate of 20,000 baht per rai on the plaintiff to the defendant until the sale is completed. But the plaintiff to the defendant entered into an agreement to buy and to sell up. The Company. But. People who will purchase the contract until the termination of a contract to buy and to sell it to you. If it has finished dealing decisively with the defendant paid the price. I agreed. The defendant is not liable to pay or remuneration in excess of those agreed.
Supreme Court to 724/2540.
Provisions under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 845 and 846 show that the contract said. Will occur, it must be agreed between the parties wishing to contract with. Suggest that individuals will act to enter into contracts or arrangements entered into an agreement that The commission when it is known that the plaintiff did not know the defendant's. I asked the defendant to the plaintiff and the defendant's offer of land by the plaintiff. Information about the land and the price point. May agreed with the plaintiff that the defendant's commission rate is 3 percent of the land's purchase price. It's a 2 percent share of the plaintiff. 1 percent to the plaintiff never agreed with the defendant's commission of the agreement to purchase. The plaintiff received a commission from the selling point. And the date of registration of transfer of title to the land between the defendant. The plaintiff did not go to the Land Office. I get paid a commission on behalf of 200,000 plaintiffs and said the rest. The plaintiff contacted. Show that the defendant did not expressly or implicitly agreed to by the plaintiff as a broker. Suggest to you.'s Land, although the plaintiff had agreed to help. I suggest that you contact. Enter into contracts or arrangements with the defendant. Land already has contracts with the defendant's share of commission. It is simply an agreement between the plaintiff's application. When the defendant appeared to agree with the plaintiff's. Do not suggest to me a week. Entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant's commission will not get divided the plaintiffs said. Act of the defendant to pay up. And interest. To some it is because that is agreed between the plaintiff's application. And interest. The plaintiff may sue to enforce a commission from the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2199/2535.
Plaintiff to the defendant to contact the sales success. The company that makes them different. It is anticipated that circumstances would allow, but so are the rewards. Considered to be agreed. Implication that the commission pension under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 846, first paragraph, the agreement to pay in excess of 2 million baht for the land on which the defendant is a reward to the plaintiff as part of a special agreement separately from each other. Although the defendant to sell land to the f. The plaintiff is also entitled to two million baht will get pension And when not, it was agreed that the pension amount is not shown. In this manner expressly
Commission is entitled to receive compensation at the expense of the interest when it was agreed that this needs to be enforced even if a contract is not done successfully.
Section 846 is a business which has been assigned to the commission. It is expected that circumstances will soon make it to the pension, you shall be deemed to have tacitly agreed that the pension commission.
Brokerages, if not the number together. You shall be deemed to have agreed a number of traditionally
Section 847 if the broker or to any third party with it. Or has been committed, but the public so that the pension should not be a broker who acts in good faith from its admitted violation of the act soon. You may find that the commission is entitled to receive pension or compensation expenses to shareholders.
Section 848 of the Commission shall not be liable to pay under the contract, which has done well because he is the media. Unless he does not know the name of one party to another.
Section 849 of the receipt or payment shall be payable under the contract. You will be presumed that the broker has no authority to accept on behalf of a party.
Supreme Court in 7550/2550.
All five plaintiffs had agreed to authorize the sale of land about five conversions. The plaintiff had sold land to the Sun, but to contact the complainant to inspect the land and serve as proof that the Sun with Sun and the five defendants agreed to contracts with the plaintiff at the home of the Sun sign as a witness in the contract. With the unbelievable. There is no evidence that plaintiff's contract claims are expressed. The testimony was only thinking that the plaintiff still has not run successfully. The defendant admitted that plaintiff did not contact the MP and the five defendants on this land. The fact is that the five defendants attest to by the evidence as a witness. Supporting documentation that the district, the son-in-law that a defendant is to contact your MP by MP to claim that there is no money to buy plots of land all five of the five defendants. However, if the land was divided between investment and profit from it can be done. Agreement that the land was divided between investment and profit. The new agreement and the five defendants have to find a consultant. And decide later whether to accept a new offer or not. Suggest that the plaintiff show that the five defendants to sell land to the MP was not successful because there is no money to buy a Sat. Agreed to take the land into a joint venture with Sun's share of profits later. The purpose of the five defendants are not relevant to the plaintiff and not on. The original purpose. Because the investment is the land of the five defendants to attend the Sat and Sun is managed by the five defendants joined the company's stock is owned by B of S that is. The new The new joint venture agreement with Sun will not be held that the defendant has successfully landed five sales. To suggest the plaintiff. But a change in land sales in new ways. That, in fact, to show that all five defendants were aware that Sun has filed a fraud case, all five of the five plots of land from the B and S were allowed to return to the land and the court sentenced five of the block. The fifth defendant. The fact is I do not suggest that the plaintiff can make sale of all five defendants. Successfully sued the purpose. The plaintiff is not entitled to a commission of five defendants agreed.
Supreme Court in 5335/2550.
The book is simply written request to reserve the land only. The contract between the plaintiff to buy and to sell to buyers are not doing well. Results suggest that as an agent or manager of the plaintiff does not arise. The plaintiff has no right to claim the reward of a commission from the defendant under Section 845.
Supreme Court in 5604/2548.
According to the commission the defendant agrees to pay commission to the plaintiff in two cases in the first case under Article 3 The plaintiffs suggest that the defendants sold a commercial building at a price not less than the room at 6.5 million baht, the defendant either agrees to pay a commission per room 300,000 Baht In the second case, under Article 4, if the plaintiff can suggest to the defendant for a commercial building at a higher price than that specified in Article 3 had both agreed to an amount in excess of the plaintiff when the plaintiff suggest that the defendants sold their stories. Room S. 9 and A.. 10 is the price the plaintiff would be entitled to a commission per room is 300,000 baht and the plaintiffs suggest that the defendants sold Commercial Building Room A-2., El. 6 to significant 8 in the prices higher than specified. The plaintiff shall be entitled to receive commissions suggest that the two defendants to sell their stories. At a price not less than that prescribed under Article 3, and is entitled to the money could suggest that the two defendants in a high price. Than required under Article 4 as well.
Supreme Court in 1804 - 1805/2546.
Joint venture between the plaintiff and the defendant's commission is an agreement of collaboration. Both parties to the land and the benefits are mutual. Be done only upon request. Nothing to me that if the defendant knew that the two plaintiffs who are not brokers. Purchase agreement will not do business as a broker for sure. The plaintiffs suggest that both the B and F entered into a sale transaction is successful. Behavior that the parties did not focus on the subject, the plaintiff must both be. Brokerage party. Joint venture agreement, the commission is not caused by the plaintiff, the two shows. The defendant's fraud will become void. Defendants are liable under a contract with the plaintiff's business as a broker.
For those defendants, including four people who sign a contract with a broker is not acting. Mr. realities. But the commission said the agreement was made because it is our intention to spread the tax base B and the defendant will have to settle for less should be considered. Excess money lands in which the defendant is a recipient of B must be allocated to the plaintiff the benefit of both parties as joint broker. When the defendant to the plaintiff are both The defendant's breach of its commission.
Supreme Court in 4362/2545.
Plaintiff's initial request to purchase land from the defendants 1 and negotiations with relatives of the defendant at a time, as well as to meet at home mother, the defendant No. 1 on the plaintiff to sell the land to the Company. The officials of the company. as well as the plaintiff had come to see the land to be traded. All the officers of the Company.'s Agreement to buy and sell land on both sides and the defendant's listed companies. Land that is successful. It caused the plaintiff to suggest the two sides entered into a contract. The plaintiff is the operator who has not known since the beginning of the Company. The defendant did not know the other one with the land owner was required to negotiate with landowners who would want to work. The advantage is that it is not the commission. If the plaintiff did not return a commission to negotiate the first contact. Any subsequent action will not occur. And the Company. The prohibition not to get the Sun or the commission of a defendant, it is only the Company. The Sun is not about the plaintiff. And that the plaintiff has not agreed to terminate the contract with the commission to deny a defendant a defendant fails to pay the commission, the plaintiff has not.
Supreme Court in 4352/2545.
Contact with the defendant and the plaintiff, and 4 plots of land ownership, rental and sale of such land. The duration of the talks together using the house as a place to meet defendant's mother, Rama, and Rama was always involved with the negotiations. Sometimes even the defendant does not, however, Rama is the captive manager to lead the contract, so any agreement in the framework of the lease or purchase land for the defendant that the defendant had indeed seen as the default dummy R. representative in negotiations with the plaintiff. The land owner agrees to rent and buy 4 plots of land on the commission as part of the agreement. Even with no evidence as to the defendant and the defendant shall be binding on the commission. And the land rent exceeds the cost to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court to 991/2545.
The defendant made the plaintiff's agent in trading ties between the plaintiff and the defendant is bound in As a principal agent, which has no specific law on the statute. The age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 of the defendant ordered the plaintiff to sell the 10,000 shares to 20,000 shares, however, the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant money to buy all the money the defendant received. for over two hundred thousand pieces of it. The case that the defendant pay the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant beyond the amount that the defendant ordered the defendant to sell the excess to be refunded with interest at a rate of 7.5 percent per year from the date of default as to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 3349/2542.
Plaintiff to provide the buyer's contract with the defendant. The plaintiff by the defendant to charge 1.5 percent of the sales contract is USD 7,470,604.95 for the pay period is 3, so when the defendant pay the plaintiff the same period. The defendant must be liable to pay the second installment and the remaining third. Even later, the seller will agree to change the contract. Buyer by reducing sales to anyone. I do not recall the defendant's liability must be paid in full. It is considered that the contracts are successful because of the plaintiff. Channel or managed.
Supreme Court in 6446/2540.
The land purchase agreement between the defendant seller, buyer, I said. Defendant to the plaintiff as a broker or agent to sell the land to a company. Not. Any part of the land. The defendant sold to the Company. Was. Defendant committed to the commission to the plaintiff $ 20,000 per acre of land to every agreement is a special part of the Remuneration Committee. Separately from the agreement, the pension commission is 3 percent, provided that the defendant pay the plaintiff at a rate of 20,000 baht per rai on the plaintiff to the defendant until the sale is completed. But the plaintiff to the defendant entered into an agreement to buy and to sell up. The Company. But. People who will purchase the contract until the termination of a contract to buy and to sell it to you. If it has finished dealing decisively with the defendant paid the price. I agreed. The defendant is not liable to pay or remuneration in excess of those agreed.
Supreme Court to 724/2540.
Provisions under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 845 and 846 show that the contract said. Will occur, it must be agreed between the parties wishing to contract with. Suggest that individuals will act to enter into contracts or arrangements entered into an agreement that The commission when it is known that the plaintiff did not know the defendant's. I asked the defendant to the plaintiff and the defendant's offer of land by the plaintiff. Information about the land and the price point. May agreed with the plaintiff that the defendant's commission rate is 3 percent of the land's purchase price. It's a 2 percent share of the plaintiff. 1 percent to the plaintiff never agreed with the defendant's commission of the agreement to purchase. The plaintiff received a commission from the selling point. And the date of registration of transfer of title to the land between the defendant. The plaintiff did not go to the Land Office. I get paid a commission on behalf of 200,000 plaintiffs and said the rest. The plaintiff contacted. Show that the defendant did not expressly or implicitly agreed to by the plaintiff as a broker. Suggest to you.'s Land, although the plaintiff had agreed to help. I suggest that you contact. Enter into contracts or arrangements with the defendant. Land already has contracts with the defendant's share of commission. It is simply an agreement between the plaintiff's application. When the defendant appeared to agree with the plaintiff's. Do not suggest to me a week. Entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant's commission will not get divided the plaintiffs said. Act of the defendant to pay up. And interest. To some it is because that is agreed between the plaintiff's application. And interest. The plaintiff may sue to enforce a commission from the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2199/2535.
Plaintiff to the defendant to contact the sales success. The company that makes them different. It is anticipated that circumstances would allow, but so are the rewards. Considered to be agreed. Implication that the commission pension under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 846, first paragraph, the agreement to pay in excess of 2 million baht for the land on which the defendant is a reward to the plaintiff as part of a special agreement separately from each other. Although the defendant to sell land to the f. The plaintiff is also entitled to two million baht will get pension And when not, it was agreed that the pension amount is not shown. In this manner expressly
