Section 908 Draft is a book which is called the payer. To another person. The payer. The amount of money to a person. Or use the instructions of a person called a beneficiary.
Section 909 of the draft. The following is the list.
(1) the bill was called.
(2) an unconditional order to pay a certain amount.
(3) the payer's name or brand.
(4) days to be spent.
(5) the use of funds.
(6) brand name or the payee. Or notification that the money holders.
(7) Date and place of the bills.
(8) Signature of payer.
Section 910 Instrument which have consistently been that the enforcement of this Section. The bill would not be complete. Except in the case say the following.
This bill does not specify the time spent. You shall be deemed to arise from the use of money when he had seen.
If the money is not stated in the draft. You shall be the domicile of the payer is the place to spend the money.
If the bill does not appear in the issue. The bills will be issued at the residence of the payer.
If the bill is not dated. He said one person who is lawfully made in good faith that it will take days, according to the actual time.
Section 911 the payer will write down how much money it will take the interest with. And in that case. If it does not say otherwise. You would think that the interest from the date of the bills.
Section 912 of the draft that would order the money order payable to any person.
There will be removed from the male ordered to pay yourself. Or payable to third parties.
Section 913 of the maturity of the bill. That is indeed one of the following.
(1) in one day or as prescribed.
(2) at the end of a specified period from the date on it or
(3) on demand or when they see or
(4) at the end of a specified length of time since he had seen.
Section 914 A person shall be paid or promised to endorse the bill. When it was brought by the applicant will be accepted and used by the body of the ticket. If he does not trust and honor it by not accepting the secondary. Or refuses to pay it. Payer or endorse the use of funds to the holder. Or to endorse the latter is forced to spend money on it. If done correctly according to the above do not endorse or do not cash it.
Section 915 and ordered to pay the bill and endorse any other requirements that will be good to take the following into the manifest, that it is.
(1) negation or limitation of liability provisions of the bill to the full.
(2) the provisions of bills that would loosen the Almighty God that He will be responsible for some or all of their own.
Section 916 individuals have been indicted in the information exchange for a fight, who is a defense that relies on the relationship between individuals during the early to the payer or who were before them, unless the transfer will have been made by machinate fraudulent
Section 917 of the draft of all. Although it is not payable to a person, so he ordered it. That would be transferable by endorsement and delivery.
When the order written down in front of the bill that "Transferable", as I write these words, which has the same melody as good. He said the bill would transfer the same, but the results and the transfer of shares.
The bills are paid to endorse it. It pays to be accepted or not. The endorsement of the payer. Or to any other party for any of the bills. These are the bills that will inevitably continue to endorse it.
Section 918 of the bill was ordered to spend the money holders. I just transferred him to deliver them.
Section 919 requires a written endorsement of the bill or counterfoil The signature of the endorser.
Endorsement shall complete and not even a beneficiary as well. Or even those who endorse it have not done anything more than his signature on the back of the bill or it would be like listening to is completely different. Endorsement as you call it. "Float endorsement"
Section 920 of the endorsement it has those rights were transferred to the bill.
If a float endorsement. Who will perform the following one is in any respect.
(1) fill in the blanks with their own name or any other person.
(2) endorsing the bills for the next float endorsement. Endorsement to any other person or any person.
(3) transfer to third parties to bills that do not fill in the blanks. And do not endorse either.
Section 921 of endorsing the draft, which enabled the money to shareholders. It is the only guarantee (aval) for the payer.
Section 922 the endorsement must be provided as an unconditional. If and conditions laid down in any way. You shall be deemed that the condition is not written into it.
In addition to endorsing the transfer of part. That void.
Section 923 prohibits the endorsement of any statement endorsing the future is already in place. The endorsement shall not be liable to the person that he is endorsing the draft that later.
Section 924 is endorsing the bill at the end of time to oppose does not endorse or do not use it soon. That would be the endorsement of the rights guaranteed by the payer to have recourse to those who have endorsed the draft after the end of time like that.
But he has opposed the bill does not guarantee or endorse, but I do not use the money soon. He said the endorsement would have only the rights of an endorsement to the identity of the guarantor and payer. And those who endorsed the bill was back up to the challenge of time only.
Section 925 on any of the endorsements that are required. "Price is a" good "to a" good "in the deal instead of" I, or any other means implicitly that the agents know that You know, the bill will be all right, but it would have caused total I will endorse one of the agents.
In such a case. All the parties which shall be fighting against God, but only with the endorsement will be valid only
Section 926 on any of the endorsements should be a "price guarantee" good "price is the pledge of" good or otherwise, the default provisions that pledge soon. You know, the bill will be all right, but it would have caused total But who endorsed it. He said the endorsement would only be used in the endorsement of an agent.
The parties are liable. He may be fighting for the defense of the relationship between the individual who has not endorsed. Unless it has endorsed terrorism cooperation with the fraud.
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 6101/2551.
Defendant notes that the three companies pledged funds as collateral for debt securities, S. Sun Capital Securities is a virtual representation of the three defendants accused of endorsing the promissory notes 3, so even though it must be deemed to endorse the pledge. The Capital Asset Sat pledge endorsing the transfer of promissory notes to be effective as an endorsement of an agent under Section 926 shall be entitled to the endorsement of the pledge. The plaintiff is the endorsement of a company's capital securities have no right to sue the Sun, thus forcing the three defendants liable to pay the bills. The only recourse I have the right of defendants to issue a promissory note only.
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 1783/2551.
The issuance of promissory notes. And its 16 percent interest rate per annum as agreed by Section 911, 968 (1) of Section 985, the law does not place any restrictions on the parties may agree. It is not a loan within the meaning of Act not to exceed the rate of interest at the rate specified in the promissory note at 16 percent per year, it's not the case, the interest rate which would be an offense under the Act and do not require. prohibited by Section 654, according to promissory notes and interest to sue is not void.
When the Court issued an order in Case No. F red 8 / 2542 of a rehabilitation plan approved by the plaintiff as a creditor and the debtor company, I have to apply for settlement in accordance with certain conditions set forth in The Bankruptcy Act. The plaintiff testified that he did not receive payment from the defendant can not attest to this Article I argue that the plaintiff had already paid. Obligations under the promissory note does not stop ticking. The submission of an application for repayment in such cases, rehabilitation is the only way the law is not new debt. When the debt is not barred by promissory notes. The defendant's liability must be guaranteed by aval to issuers with P.
Supreme Court in 8795/2551.
Testimony of all five defendants will refuse to terminate the plaintiff filed it. All five defendants also explains the reason for the lawsuit to terminate the plaintiff said. The debt payments, the plaintiff filed suit against five defendants for more than three years and in the interest of the plaintiff's claim of the defendant's five more than five years from the due date of the promissory note dispute. This case held that the defendant has shown that all five of them explicitly rejected it. When the plaintiff sued the defendant in this case, all five of liability under the promissory notes debt alone. All five defendants were not specified in the notice that Terminate the plaintiff's legal matters.
Promissory note to pay on demand based on Section 913 (3) and Section 985 of age, began when the original creditor. The plaintiff, as assignee of claims has the right to call the defendant to an issuer to make a payment under the promissory note so that when the facts from a letter dated April 19, 2539 that the credit originally written notice to the defendant as a loan under. promissory note Age, we begin with demand from the debt. When the plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 29, 2544, the expiration of three years from the date on which the plaintiff may be entitled to claim. To terminate the plaintiff's claims under Section 1001, and despite the fact that two cases 4 and 5, but when the trial court did not terminate the plaintiff. Justice of the Supreme Court shall have power to affect the defendants 2 to 4 and 5, as Civil Procedure Code Section 245 (a) and Section 247.
Supreme Court in 5477/2550.
Civil Procedure Code Section 4 (1) states that the indictment be presented to the court that the defendant is domiciled in the district court. Or to the court that the case was in court that the defendant is domiciled, in accordance with the provisions of the criminal cycle, or the means to cause the carriage as the source of the plaintiff's argument that the right to sue. According to the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendant ordered to pay out a district, as the case proceeds to reimburse the District has purchased land to the defendant the amount of 140,000 Baht to the district, such as the date when the check payable to Nam. to billing. But the bank refuses to pay the check, even as I was the victim, while in case the bank refuses to pay. Whether the plaintiff was not injured. But when I said I was transferred to the plaintiff in the dispute. By endorsing the settlement check and deliver to the plaintiff. He and the plaintiff shall be entitled to the same district, in order to enforce against the defendant who has already committed before the third paragraph under Section 967 and Section 989, first paragraph, the plaintiff has sued the defendants. the payer to pay the plaintiff a check. The liability of the defendants in the dispute occurred when the bank refuses to pay the place where the check was refused to pay the carriage is indeed the place where born. When the bank refuses to pay the check is in the jurisdiction of the Court. It held that the case was in court. Plaintiff's complaint, the Court has power to all the provisions of that law.
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 4789/2549.
Promissory notes issued by the specified date is September 30, 2540 maturity date of October 31, 2540 using the interest rate per annum BBL MOR +1 on the promissory note the defendant is required to charge interest. And does not specify that the interest from any So the interest rate specified in the promissory note from the date of the ticket, according to Section 911, 968, 985 on October 31, 2540 to date, a defendant does not pay the bills. Shall be deemed to constitute a default by the defendant upon the second paragraph of Section 204 by a creditor does not require prior notice or demand whatsoever. When an assignment of this claim to the plaintiff. Behalf of the plaintiff as assignee of the original creditor has a claim for the value. All existing debt as well as debt of the two defendants.
Supreme Court in 6658/2548.
Check both the defendant disputes only the signed order. It is not complete and the amount of money. Check both of these disputes is consistently listed in the issue. Without the unconditional use of certain funds under Section 988 (2) is not completely in check by Section 987 and Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one and check the entire dispute. two, it is not evidence of a loan under Section 653 the plaintiff sued the defendant has no liability under the settlement check has both.
Supreme Court in 6305/2548.
In case the defendant an order has been defaced, the word "or bearer" and then write the word "live" 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.
Bills pledged as security for debts the defendant to the plaintiff. The pledge by the plaintiff, who has been endorsed and accepted bills of exchange. In possession under Section 926 and 766, when a pledge to endorse the bill. He shall exercise all due, but the total And the pledge, the bill would have the right to charge according to the maturity. The pledge is not required to notify the plaintiff is entitled to charge the bills that are due to less money. The first payment of the defendant by the plaintiff is not required to notify the defendant that a prior pledge.
Supreme Court in 5099/2548.
In the case of property pledged by the general. If the pledge is a pledge to enforce a written notice to the debtor to pay. Debt and in a reasonable period of notice is given to the first. If the debtor fails to comply with a notice to the property pledged to put it like that. Loan auctions by the Section 764 paragraphs one and two. If an agreement to manage the property as the other provisions. With the enforcement of the pledge. Such an agreement would not be complete under Section 756, and even in the case of forced liquidation of the pledge is a pledge by the Bill. Assurance that debt. The honor pledge has the right to charge them without notice. Before any enforcement of the pledge. But the draft bill by the due date for payment under Section 766 of the plaintiff to enforce payment of the bills that are pledged. To redemption prior to maturity by the payment of the bill. Not with the above-mentioned provisions of law. The redemption or receive payment under the bill before the due date of payment to the payer would prefer not to pay until the due date. But this case is not honoring honoring to the plaintiff, with reductions to the money. The payer can benefit from the discounts. The plaintiff received a benefit payment, but the defendant is a party have benefited from the adoption of the redemption proceeds from ticket Redeemed before the maturity date is less than the amount by which the net debt was less a defendant would have been damaged by the wrongful acts of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the money was missing. Or withholding of payments to be accurate.
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 1648/2547.
The defendant disputes the claim that the check is payable in case there is no debt. And transfer of dispute with the plaintiff in a fraudulent transfer terrorism cooperation. The defendant has a duty to serve as proof of the claim. When it can not serve as proof that the defendant is not in dispute the debt. The defendant shall be liable to the former. The holder before the transfer to the plaintiff in the dispute. The settlement check is a check payable to holders of money. Check with the transfer case can only deliver to each other. The plaintiff, who is in dispute with it. He had no fight with them before it is used as a defense to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant will claim that there is no debt to the former owner can not. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff.
(This problem is diagnosed by the resolutions of the meeting No. 4 / 2547).
Supreme Court to 748/2547.
Defendant ordered to pay out the money to B, or who are leaders in exchange for cash from the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the defendant who has been indicted. If the check. The plaintiff, a defendant may fight against the involvement of each individual. He started with the previous ones, except that no transfer will take place with terrorism cooperation between the civil fraud. And Commercial Section 916 of the first paragraph of Article 989, but the defendant only that defendant's check made payable to B because the defendant has no debt to pay to check it. It discusses the relationship between the defendant, a check made payable to the holder. The former only. The defendant testified that plaintiff has not received a fraudulent check by terrorism cooperation with the former, however, the defendant may raise as a defense to the plaintiff that the check does not have the same debt. Prohibited by Section 916.
The defendant testified that the plaintiff used the power of prosecution in bad faith by not clearly described. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in bad faith, however. The dispute does not cause issues.
Sign your check payable to the defendant disputes. Defendants are liable under the body in check by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 900, paragraph one, when the bank refused to pay. Defendant is liable to pay the check to the plaintiff under Section 914 of the first paragraph of Article 989.
Supreme Court in 4072/2545.
4, which guarantees the defendant did not raise the statute as a defense in the notice. But the defendant, a debtor and a third defendant, who is guaranteed to raise the fighting age, but because the factual basis of the case. Obligations which are not separated from each other. Raised up against the defendant's age, 1 and 3, is regarded as a representation by the defendant at 4.
Promissory note dispute the date of payment upon demand by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 913 (3) and Section 985, the statute begins when the plaintiff has the right to claim the defendants 1 and 2, the issue then. The plaintiffs have a claim to the defendant, the defendant's claim that the two newspapers were published on 2539, and plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 30 the same year within the three year time limit under section 1001.
The plaintiff is entitled to charge interest by financial institutions, Bank of Thailand. By virtue of the Finance Act. Securities Business and Credit Foncier Business BE 2522, Section 30 (2) the law of the court by the plaintiff has no evidence of the execution. Section 84 of the civil plaintiff is entitled to charge interest at a rate of 16.5 percent, according to the promissory note.
Supreme Court in 4383/2545.
In case a plaintiff is a beneficiary. It does not cross the holder of a check, money order, use the phone as well. If an endorsement in order to use the money to shareholders. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 989, Section 921 of the Constitution as a guarantee (aval) for the payer. Can be considered an endorsement, so that the plaintiff endorsed the settlement check. Whether to charge the account of others, which is representing the plaintiff, or transfer the case to check. When the bank refuses to pay out the dispute. Check back with the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff shall have the status of a dispute under Section 904, the check is not as endorsements. The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment within one year from the date of the statute in dispute pursuant to the provisions of Section 1002 is not the case. 1003 at the age of 6 months from the date of endorsement of the bills and money.
He checks it against the payer to pay the check. He not only checks when the bank refused to pay. The check was received in good faith after the bank denied it was ever paid. Check with the authority to sue the payer to pay the check so that plaintiffs who are in dispute while the bank refuses to pay or not. But when the plaintiff was ever in dispute is filed. The plaintiff shall have the power to sue.
Supreme Court in 9539/2544.
Check the bill payer to call the bank. He checked with the bank the right to demand money from the check means. Date check. Not refer to the payer a check or not check at the check holder. The bank refused to pay. Age, we begin from the date on which the holders may force the check. Claims that the accordance with Section 193/12.
The plaintiff accused the defendants agreed to cross check on the dispute and allow the plaintiff to check out one day that the plaintiff was appropriate. The plaintiff dated check in the first place to check into the matter. Banks prefer to refuse to pay because of the instrument, and submit the missing items. This defect was not considered as a check. The plaintiff then brought the instrument back-dated check in on July 22, 2541, to complete a check, it is right that the plaintiff would be made. Age, we begin from the date of July 22, 2541 onwards.
Supreme Court in 4768/2543.
The defendants dispute that the second check payable to the payee is a defendant. 2 does not cross the holder of the check issued to holders who pay by check or cash to the defendant, 2, or any person in possession of a check. The defendant. 2 endorsing the transfer to the plaintiff.It is the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 904.
Supreme Court in 6339/2539.
Check out a dispute is to be transferred by endorsement and delivery. The plaintiff then delivered to the Bank endorsed a settlement check. To sell the hotel. I transferred all rights to it, which caused the check to the bank. He is like a check. And checks the bill was not billed as a plaintiff. He checks into the bank when the check refuses to pay the plaintiff has paid. Big money in the bank. And in return the plaintiff is in dispute, as the endorser. I shall find out. We do not have recourse to sue a defendant who is ordered to pay within six months from the date the plaintiff to take checks and money disputes.
Supreme Court to 948/2539.
Promissory note stating that the ticket was issued on June 17, 2528 contract. Will pay 10.03 million baht, with interest rates of 18.5 percent per year on. June 17, 2529 the plaintiff was entitled to charge interest from the date of June 17. 2528, a promissory note issued by the Civil and Commercial Section. 911 Section 985.
Supreme Court in 1214/2547.
Check the age, from the date the check is not from the date of the check. When the claimant received the check. Check the date. Plaintiff who is lawfully acting in good faith from the date issued. The actual check in the obstruction in the Civil and Commercial Code and Section 910 par 989 on the date on which the checks to sue within one year. Does not terminate the litigation.
Supreme Court in 7545/2538.
The defendant endorsed the check. York. Payable to the plaintiff to pay the debt when the bank refused to pay the plaintiff did not. Paid by check from the defendant, who shall endorse it with me. Payable to the plaintiff. When the defendant is liable to the plaintiff's debt in the debt was contracted out, but later recovered. Money instead of debt, this debt is indeed a real and enforceable by law, even The loan agreement had not been paid by the plaintiff but the defendant owed the plaintiff before. The amount of debt. York. Order the defendant to pay the check and endorsed by the defendant need not be relevant or effective. Synergy with the. The defendant when the defendant is liable for payment of this unpaid debt and the plaintiff. The loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant owed the plaintiff can enforce. Such payments are legal, even in the loan contract, the defendant was ordered to pay check. By order dated the day the payment is due under the loan order. Check to pay check to pay off the debt constitutes a real and effective. According to the law on the bank refused to cash the check without the defendant's actions would be. An offense under the Act arising from the use of checks.
Supreme Court to 77/2538.
The defendant signed a promissory note and endorse up to nine defendants are. Bound together with the company.'s Liability under the promissory notes issued by the 9th edition. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 919 967 and 985. The transfer of plaintiff's claims and the debt of the defendant on. November 24, 2530 the defendant received notice of the transfer claims and demands, on the day. November 26, 2530 at this event, the claim of the plaintiff to the defendant. Legal effect on November 26, 2530, the date the plaintiff demanded the defendant. The promissory note is paid by the due date before they spend money. The defendant has no duty to be responsible for payment under the promissory note dispute. Only the plaintiff is entitled to claim only claim the money immediately. The defendant did not know ignore it constitute a default under the settlement of claims. The plaintiff must start from the date of November 26, 2530 plaintiff filed this lawsuit on. December 23, 2530 not later than one year after the plaintiff is entitled to claim from the plaintiff and defendant cases. Not terminate the.
Supreme Court in 2119/2522.
When the plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the debt at a discount under a bill that the defendant made to plaintiff. The defendant, 2, 3, 4 and 5 together with the defendant's liability as guarantor that a sale of the said bills. Has sued the defendant liable for debts contracted by the bill does not lower bills. Law on the statute specifically so. Must be governed by the Civil and Commercial Code Section 164 is the age of 10 years.
Supreme Court in 2516/2530.
Remember to indicate that the helicopter is the payee bank. The defendant company and brand name companies. The signature of the authorized signature of the defendant, one of the means. Endorsed the bill, it held that the defendant is forced to pay for a message that the 'payer' is not the Company. The Bills have named the company and signature. Managing Director with The company must be regarded as a payer. And need not have written that. 'Payer as well.
Helicopter Bank honored the recipients who have endorsed the deal, the bank A. Bank A has been endorsed to the plaintiff as a manager instead. As a plaintiff who has exercised all due bills and a ticket. The total Civil and Commercial Code, Section 925 plaintiff is entitled to demand payment under the bill, and prosecute their own.
Supreme Court to 653/2521.
The bill does not specify the interest set. This is the case, the plaintiff who claims paid directly by the defendant that a bill which has been approved. I call it from a person whom the right of recourse under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 968 plaintiff is entitled to interest on a bill due and is guilty. I followed the general obligations as provided in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 204 224.
The plaintiffs, who have recourse to the interest rate of five percent per year since The due date for payment of those endorsements, and others which are liable under the bill, it shall have the right to take interest. Rate of five percent per year from the defendant, a certified bill of exchange, which must be shared with the person who is liable to the plaintiff. With the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 967 968 (2).
Supreme Court in 1245/2499.
Written instrument under Section 909 of the bill would not be complete. And when it says to use the money to shareholders by then. Is delivered only to the transfer by it.
Written instrument which has no effect on the issuer promises to pay for it. Person or by order of another person shall not promissory notes.
Section 909 of the draft. The following is the list.
(1) the bill was called.
(2) an unconditional order to pay a certain amount.
(3) the payer's name or brand.
(4) days to be spent.
(5) the use of funds.
(6) brand name or the payee. Or notification that the money holders.
(7) Date and place of the bills.
(8) Signature of payer.
Section 910 Instrument which have consistently been that the enforcement of this Section. The bill would not be complete. Except in the case say the following.
This bill does not specify the time spent. You shall be deemed to arise from the use of money when he had seen.
If the money is not stated in the draft. You shall be the domicile of the payer is the place to spend the money.
If the bill does not appear in the issue. The bills will be issued at the residence of the payer.
If the bill is not dated. He said one person who is lawfully made in good faith that it will take days, according to the actual time.
Section 911 the payer will write down how much money it will take the interest with. And in that case. If it does not say otherwise. You would think that the interest from the date of the bills.
Section 912 of the draft that would order the money order payable to any person.
There will be removed from the male ordered to pay yourself. Or payable to third parties.
Section 913 of the maturity of the bill. That is indeed one of the following.
(1) in one day or as prescribed.
(2) at the end of a specified period from the date on it or
(3) on demand or when they see or
(4) at the end of a specified length of time since he had seen.
Section 914 A person shall be paid or promised to endorse the bill. When it was brought by the applicant will be accepted and used by the body of the ticket. If he does not trust and honor it by not accepting the secondary. Or refuses to pay it. Payer or endorse the use of funds to the holder. Or to endorse the latter is forced to spend money on it. If done correctly according to the above do not endorse or do not cash it.
Section 915 and ordered to pay the bill and endorse any other requirements that will be good to take the following into the manifest, that it is.
(1) negation or limitation of liability provisions of the bill to the full.
(2) the provisions of bills that would loosen the Almighty God that He will be responsible for some or all of their own.
Section 916 individuals have been indicted in the information exchange for a fight, who is a defense that relies on the relationship between individuals during the early to the payer or who were before them, unless the transfer will have been made by machinate fraudulent
Section 917 of the draft of all. Although it is not payable to a person, so he ordered it. That would be transferable by endorsement and delivery.
When the order written down in front of the bill that "Transferable", as I write these words, which has the same melody as good. He said the bill would transfer the same, but the results and the transfer of shares.
The bills are paid to endorse it. It pays to be accepted or not. The endorsement of the payer. Or to any other party for any of the bills. These are the bills that will inevitably continue to endorse it.
Section 918 of the bill was ordered to spend the money holders. I just transferred him to deliver them.
Section 919 requires a written endorsement of the bill or counterfoil The signature of the endorser.
Endorsement shall complete and not even a beneficiary as well. Or even those who endorse it have not done anything more than his signature on the back of the bill or it would be like listening to is completely different. Endorsement as you call it. "Float endorsement"
Section 920 of the endorsement it has those rights were transferred to the bill.
If a float endorsement. Who will perform the following one is in any respect.
(1) fill in the blanks with their own name or any other person.
(2) endorsing the bills for the next float endorsement. Endorsement to any other person or any person.
(3) transfer to third parties to bills that do not fill in the blanks. And do not endorse either.
Section 921 of endorsing the draft, which enabled the money to shareholders. It is the only guarantee (aval) for the payer.
Section 922 the endorsement must be provided as an unconditional. If and conditions laid down in any way. You shall be deemed that the condition is not written into it.
In addition to endorsing the transfer of part. That void.
Section 923 prohibits the endorsement of any statement endorsing the future is already in place. The endorsement shall not be liable to the person that he is endorsing the draft that later.
Section 924 is endorsing the bill at the end of time to oppose does not endorse or do not use it soon. That would be the endorsement of the rights guaranteed by the payer to have recourse to those who have endorsed the draft after the end of time like that.
But he has opposed the bill does not guarantee or endorse, but I do not use the money soon. He said the endorsement would have only the rights of an endorsement to the identity of the guarantor and payer. And those who endorsed the bill was back up to the challenge of time only.
Section 925 on any of the endorsements that are required. "Price is a" good "to a" good "in the deal instead of" I, or any other means implicitly that the agents know that You know, the bill will be all right, but it would have caused total I will endorse one of the agents.
In such a case. All the parties which shall be fighting against God, but only with the endorsement will be valid only
Section 926 on any of the endorsements should be a "price guarantee" good "price is the pledge of" good or otherwise, the default provisions that pledge soon. You know, the bill will be all right, but it would have caused total But who endorsed it. He said the endorsement would only be used in the endorsement of an agent.
The parties are liable. He may be fighting for the defense of the relationship between the individual who has not endorsed. Unless it has endorsed terrorism cooperation with the fraud.
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 6101/2551.
Defendant notes that the three companies pledged funds as collateral for debt securities, S. Sun Capital Securities is a virtual representation of the three defendants accused of endorsing the promissory notes 3, so even though it must be deemed to endorse the pledge. The Capital Asset Sat pledge endorsing the transfer of promissory notes to be effective as an endorsement of an agent under Section 926 shall be entitled to the endorsement of the pledge. The plaintiff is the endorsement of a company's capital securities have no right to sue the Sun, thus forcing the three defendants liable to pay the bills. The only recourse I have the right of defendants to issue a promissory note only.
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 1783/2551.
The issuance of promissory notes. And its 16 percent interest rate per annum as agreed by Section 911, 968 (1) of Section 985, the law does not place any restrictions on the parties may agree. It is not a loan within the meaning of Act not to exceed the rate of interest at the rate specified in the promissory note at 16 percent per year, it's not the case, the interest rate which would be an offense under the Act and do not require. prohibited by Section 654, according to promissory notes and interest to sue is not void.
When the Court issued an order in Case No. F red 8 / 2542 of a rehabilitation plan approved by the plaintiff as a creditor and the debtor company, I have to apply for settlement in accordance with certain conditions set forth in The Bankruptcy Act. The plaintiff testified that he did not receive payment from the defendant can not attest to this Article I argue that the plaintiff had already paid. Obligations under the promissory note does not stop ticking. The submission of an application for repayment in such cases, rehabilitation is the only way the law is not new debt. When the debt is not barred by promissory notes. The defendant's liability must be guaranteed by aval to issuers with P.
Supreme Court in 8795/2551.
Testimony of all five defendants will refuse to terminate the plaintiff filed it. All five defendants also explains the reason for the lawsuit to terminate the plaintiff said. The debt payments, the plaintiff filed suit against five defendants for more than three years and in the interest of the plaintiff's claim of the defendant's five more than five years from the due date of the promissory note dispute. This case held that the defendant has shown that all five of them explicitly rejected it. When the plaintiff sued the defendant in this case, all five of liability under the promissory notes debt alone. All five defendants were not specified in the notice that Terminate the plaintiff's legal matters.
Promissory note to pay on demand based on Section 913 (3) and Section 985 of age, began when the original creditor. The plaintiff, as assignee of claims has the right to call the defendant to an issuer to make a payment under the promissory note so that when the facts from a letter dated April 19, 2539 that the credit originally written notice to the defendant as a loan under. promissory note Age, we begin with demand from the debt. When the plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 29, 2544, the expiration of three years from the date on which the plaintiff may be entitled to claim. To terminate the plaintiff's claims under Section 1001, and despite the fact that two cases 4 and 5, but when the trial court did not terminate the plaintiff. Justice of the Supreme Court shall have power to affect the defendants 2 to 4 and 5, as Civil Procedure Code Section 245 (a) and Section 247.
Supreme Court in 5477/2550.
Civil Procedure Code Section 4 (1) states that the indictment be presented to the court that the defendant is domiciled in the district court. Or to the court that the case was in court that the defendant is domiciled, in accordance with the provisions of the criminal cycle, or the means to cause the carriage as the source of the plaintiff's argument that the right to sue. According to the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendant ordered to pay out a district, as the case proceeds to reimburse the District has purchased land to the defendant the amount of 140,000 Baht to the district, such as the date when the check payable to Nam. to billing. But the bank refuses to pay the check, even as I was the victim, while in case the bank refuses to pay. Whether the plaintiff was not injured. But when I said I was transferred to the plaintiff in the dispute. By endorsing the settlement check and deliver to the plaintiff. He and the plaintiff shall be entitled to the same district, in order to enforce against the defendant who has already committed before the third paragraph under Section 967 and Section 989, first paragraph, the plaintiff has sued the defendants. the payer to pay the plaintiff a check. The liability of the defendants in the dispute occurred when the bank refuses to pay the place where the check was refused to pay the carriage is indeed the place where born. When the bank refuses to pay the check is in the jurisdiction of the Court. It held that the case was in court. Plaintiff's complaint, the Court has power to all the provisions of that law.
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 4789/2549.
Promissory notes issued by the specified date is September 30, 2540 maturity date of October 31, 2540 using the interest rate per annum BBL MOR +1 on the promissory note the defendant is required to charge interest. And does not specify that the interest from any So the interest rate specified in the promissory note from the date of the ticket, according to Section 911, 968, 985 on October 31, 2540 to date, a defendant does not pay the bills. Shall be deemed to constitute a default by the defendant upon the second paragraph of Section 204 by a creditor does not require prior notice or demand whatsoever. When an assignment of this claim to the plaintiff. Behalf of the plaintiff as assignee of the original creditor has a claim for the value. All existing debt as well as debt of the two defendants.
Supreme Court in 6658/2548.
Check both the defendant disputes only the signed order. It is not complete and the amount of money. Check both of these disputes is consistently listed in the issue. Without the unconditional use of certain funds under Section 988 (2) is not completely in check by Section 987 and Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one and check the entire dispute. two, it is not evidence of a loan under Section 653 the plaintiff sued the defendant has no liability under the settlement check has both.
Supreme Court in 6305/2548.
In case the defendant an order has been defaced, the word "or bearer" and then write the word "live" 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.
Bills pledged as security for debts the defendant to the plaintiff. The pledge by the plaintiff, who has been endorsed and accepted bills of exchange. In possession under Section 926 and 766, when a pledge to endorse the bill. He shall exercise all due, but the total And the pledge, the bill would have the right to charge according to the maturity. The pledge is not required to notify the plaintiff is entitled to charge the bills that are due to less money. The first payment of the defendant by the plaintiff is not required to notify the defendant that a prior pledge.
Supreme Court in 5099/2548.
In the case of property pledged by the general. If the pledge is a pledge to enforce a written notice to the debtor to pay. Debt and in a reasonable period of notice is given to the first. If the debtor fails to comply with a notice to the property pledged to put it like that. Loan auctions by the Section 764 paragraphs one and two. If an agreement to manage the property as the other provisions. With the enforcement of the pledge. Such an agreement would not be complete under Section 756, and even in the case of forced liquidation of the pledge is a pledge by the Bill. Assurance that debt. The honor pledge has the right to charge them without notice. Before any enforcement of the pledge. But the draft bill by the due date for payment under Section 766 of the plaintiff to enforce payment of the bills that are pledged. To redemption prior to maturity by the payment of the bill. Not with the above-mentioned provisions of law. The redemption or receive payment under the bill before the due date of payment to the payer would prefer not to pay until the due date. But this case is not honoring honoring to the plaintiff, with reductions to the money. The payer can benefit from the discounts. The plaintiff received a benefit payment, but the defendant is a party have benefited from the adoption of the redemption proceeds from ticket Redeemed before the maturity date is less than the amount by which the net debt was less a defendant would have been damaged by the wrongful acts of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the money was missing. Or withholding of payments to be accurate.
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 1648/2547.
The defendant disputes the claim that the check is payable in case there is no debt. And transfer of dispute with the plaintiff in a fraudulent transfer terrorism cooperation. The defendant has a duty to serve as proof of the claim. When it can not serve as proof that the defendant is not in dispute the debt. The defendant shall be liable to the former. The holder before the transfer to the plaintiff in the dispute. The settlement check is a check payable to holders of money. Check with the transfer case can only deliver to each other. The plaintiff, who is in dispute with it. He had no fight with them before it is used as a defense to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant will claim that there is no debt to the former owner can not. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff.
(This problem is diagnosed by the resolutions of the meeting No. 4 / 2547).
Supreme Court to 748/2547.
Defendant ordered to pay out the money to B, or who are leaders in exchange for cash from the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the defendant who has been indicted. If the check. The plaintiff, a defendant may fight against the involvement of each individual. He started with the previous ones, except that no transfer will take place with terrorism cooperation between the civil fraud. And Commercial Section 916 of the first paragraph of Article 989, but the defendant only that defendant's check made payable to B because the defendant has no debt to pay to check it. It discusses the relationship between the defendant, a check made payable to the holder. The former only. The defendant testified that plaintiff has not received a fraudulent check by terrorism cooperation with the former, however, the defendant may raise as a defense to the plaintiff that the check does not have the same debt. Prohibited by Section 916.
The defendant testified that the plaintiff used the power of prosecution in bad faith by not clearly described. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in bad faith, however. The dispute does not cause issues.
Sign your check payable to the defendant disputes. Defendants are liable under the body in check by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 900, paragraph one, when the bank refused to pay. Defendant is liable to pay the check to the plaintiff under Section 914 of the first paragraph of Article 989.
Supreme Court in 4072/2545.
4, which guarantees the defendant did not raise the statute as a defense in the notice. But the defendant, a debtor and a third defendant, who is guaranteed to raise the fighting age, but because the factual basis of the case. Obligations which are not separated from each other. Raised up against the defendant's age, 1 and 3, is regarded as a representation by the defendant at 4.
Promissory note dispute the date of payment upon demand by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 913 (3) and Section 985, the statute begins when the plaintiff has the right to claim the defendants 1 and 2, the issue then. The plaintiffs have a claim to the defendant, the defendant's claim that the two newspapers were published on 2539, and plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 30 the same year within the three year time limit under section 1001.
The plaintiff is entitled to charge interest by financial institutions, Bank of Thailand. By virtue of the Finance Act. Securities Business and Credit Foncier Business BE 2522, Section 30 (2) the law of the court by the plaintiff has no evidence of the execution. Section 84 of the civil plaintiff is entitled to charge interest at a rate of 16.5 percent, according to the promissory note.
Supreme Court in 4383/2545.
In case a plaintiff is a beneficiary. It does not cross the holder of a check, money order, use the phone as well. If an endorsement in order to use the money to shareholders. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 989, Section 921 of the Constitution as a guarantee (aval) for the payer. Can be considered an endorsement, so that the plaintiff endorsed the settlement check. Whether to charge the account of others, which is representing the plaintiff, or transfer the case to check. When the bank refuses to pay out the dispute. Check back with the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff shall have the status of a dispute under Section 904, the check is not as endorsements. The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment within one year from the date of the statute in dispute pursuant to the provisions of Section 1002 is not the case. 1003 at the age of 6 months from the date of endorsement of the bills and money.
He checks it against the payer to pay the check. He not only checks when the bank refused to pay. The check was received in good faith after the bank denied it was ever paid. Check with the authority to sue the payer to pay the check so that plaintiffs who are in dispute while the bank refuses to pay or not. But when the plaintiff was ever in dispute is filed. The plaintiff shall have the power to sue.
Supreme Court in 9539/2544.
Check the bill payer to call the bank. He checked with the bank the right to demand money from the check means. Date check. Not refer to the payer a check or not check at the check holder. The bank refused to pay. Age, we begin from the date on which the holders may force the check. Claims that the accordance with Section 193/12.
The plaintiff accused the defendants agreed to cross check on the dispute and allow the plaintiff to check out one day that the plaintiff was appropriate. The plaintiff dated check in the first place to check into the matter. Banks prefer to refuse to pay because of the instrument, and submit the missing items. This defect was not considered as a check. The plaintiff then brought the instrument back-dated check in on July 22, 2541, to complete a check, it is right that the plaintiff would be made. Age, we begin from the date of July 22, 2541 onwards.
Supreme Court in 4768/2543.
The defendants dispute that the second check payable to the payee is a defendant. 2 does not cross the holder of the check issued to holders who pay by check or cash to the defendant, 2, or any person in possession of a check. The defendant. 2 endorsing the transfer to the plaintiff.It is the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 904.
Supreme Court in 6339/2539.
Check out a dispute is to be transferred by endorsement and delivery. The plaintiff then delivered to the Bank endorsed a settlement check. To sell the hotel. I transferred all rights to it, which caused the check to the bank. He is like a check. And checks the bill was not billed as a plaintiff. He checks into the bank when the check refuses to pay the plaintiff has paid. Big money in the bank. And in return the plaintiff is in dispute, as the endorser. I shall find out. We do not have recourse to sue a defendant who is ordered to pay within six months from the date the plaintiff to take checks and money disputes.
Supreme Court to 948/2539.
Promissory note stating that the ticket was issued on June 17, 2528 contract. Will pay 10.03 million baht, with interest rates of 18.5 percent per year on. June 17, 2529 the plaintiff was entitled to charge interest from the date of June 17. 2528, a promissory note issued by the Civil and Commercial Section. 911 Section 985.
Supreme Court in 1214/2547.
Check the age, from the date the check is not from the date of the check. When the claimant received the check. Check the date. Plaintiff who is lawfully acting in good faith from the date issued. The actual check in the obstruction in the Civil and Commercial Code and Section 910 par 989 on the date on which the checks to sue within one year. Does not terminate the litigation.
Supreme Court in 7545/2538.
The defendant endorsed the check. York. Payable to the plaintiff to pay the debt when the bank refused to pay the plaintiff did not. Paid by check from the defendant, who shall endorse it with me. Payable to the plaintiff. When the defendant is liable to the plaintiff's debt in the debt was contracted out, but later recovered. Money instead of debt, this debt is indeed a real and enforceable by law, even The loan agreement had not been paid by the plaintiff but the defendant owed the plaintiff before. The amount of debt. York. Order the defendant to pay the check and endorsed by the defendant need not be relevant or effective. Synergy with the. The defendant when the defendant is liable for payment of this unpaid debt and the plaintiff. The loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant owed the plaintiff can enforce. Such payments are legal, even in the loan contract, the defendant was ordered to pay check. By order dated the day the payment is due under the loan order. Check to pay check to pay off the debt constitutes a real and effective. According to the law on the bank refused to cash the check without the defendant's actions would be. An offense under the Act arising from the use of checks.
Supreme Court to 77/2538.
The defendant signed a promissory note and endorse up to nine defendants are. Bound together with the company.'s Liability under the promissory notes issued by the 9th edition. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 919 967 and 985. The transfer of plaintiff's claims and the debt of the defendant on. November 24, 2530 the defendant received notice of the transfer claims and demands, on the day. November 26, 2530 at this event, the claim of the plaintiff to the defendant. Legal effect on November 26, 2530, the date the plaintiff demanded the defendant. The promissory note is paid by the due date before they spend money. The defendant has no duty to be responsible for payment under the promissory note dispute. Only the plaintiff is entitled to claim only claim the money immediately. The defendant did not know ignore it constitute a default under the settlement of claims. The plaintiff must start from the date of November 26, 2530 plaintiff filed this lawsuit on. December 23, 2530 not later than one year after the plaintiff is entitled to claim from the plaintiff and defendant cases. Not terminate the.
Supreme Court in 2119/2522.
When the plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the debt at a discount under a bill that the defendant made to plaintiff. The defendant, 2, 3, 4 and 5 together with the defendant's liability as guarantor that a sale of the said bills. Has sued the defendant liable for debts contracted by the bill does not lower bills. Law on the statute specifically so. Must be governed by the Civil and Commercial Code Section 164 is the age of 10 years.
Supreme Court in 2516/2530.
Remember to indicate that the helicopter is the payee bank. The defendant company and brand name companies. The signature of the authorized signature of the defendant, one of the means. Endorsed the bill, it held that the defendant is forced to pay for a message that the 'payer' is not the Company. The Bills have named the company and signature. Managing Director with The company must be regarded as a payer. And need not have written that. 'Payer as well.
Helicopter Bank honored the recipients who have endorsed the deal, the bank A. Bank A has been endorsed to the plaintiff as a manager instead. As a plaintiff who has exercised all due bills and a ticket. The total Civil and Commercial Code, Section 925 plaintiff is entitled to demand payment under the bill, and prosecute their own.
Supreme Court to 653/2521.
The bill does not specify the interest set. This is the case, the plaintiff who claims paid directly by the defendant that a bill which has been approved. I call it from a person whom the right of recourse under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 968 plaintiff is entitled to interest on a bill due and is guilty. I followed the general obligations as provided in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 204 224.
The plaintiffs, who have recourse to the interest rate of five percent per year since The due date for payment of those endorsements, and others which are liable under the bill, it shall have the right to take interest. Rate of five percent per year from the defendant, a certified bill of exchange, which must be shared with the person who is liable to the plaintiff. With the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 967 968 (2).
Supreme Court in 1245/2499.
Written instrument under Section 909 of the bill would not be complete. And when it says to use the money to shareholders by then. Is delivered only to the transfer by it.
Written instrument which has no effect on the issuer promises to pay for it. Person or by order of another person shall not promissory notes.
