Section 982
of the promissory note. Is a book of instruments, which one person Called the
ticket issuer Make a pledge to spend a certain amount on another person or use
it on another person's order. Called payee
Section 983
promissory note There must be a list of the following.
(1) the
name is a promissory note.
(2) Unconditional
commitment to use a certain amount of money.
(3) due
date
(4) Where
to spend money
(5) the
name or brand of the payee;
(6) Date
and place of promissory note.
(7) the
issuer's signature.
Section 984
of the instrument which contains a deficiency from the preceding clause. It is
not a promissory note. Except in the case of the following:
Promissory notes which do not
specify the time of use. You are considered Use money when you see.
If the place of the money is
not stated in the promissory note. You will have the domicile of the issuer as
a place to use the money.
If the promissory note does
not specify the place of issuance. You are considered The ticket is issued at
the domicile of the issuer.
If not, issue a ticket. He who
is lawful, in good faith, will write down the correct date.
Section 985. The
provisions in Chapter 2 on bills of exchange shall be as
follows. You are required to raise the amount of the promissory note only as
not contrary to the condition of this instrument is Section 911,
913, 916, 917, 919, 920, 922 to 926, 938 to 947, 949, 950, 954 to 959, 967 to 971
If it is a promissory note
issued abroad. You hereby apply the following provisions: Articles 960 to 964, 973, 974
Section 986
issuers of promissory notes are bound to be the same as those issued with bills
of exchange.
Promissory notes, which will
be used at a certain time after seeing them. Must be submitted to the issuer to
recognize within the time limit prescribed in Section 928. This
deadline is from the date of receipt, which is signed by the issuer. If the
issuer refuses to recognize and date. He refuses to do this as evidence against
the objection. The date of the objection is considered as the starting date for
counting the time.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3488/2557.
The plaintiff has promissory
note in the possession of the plaintiff because the promissory note back to the
plaintiff because the plaintiff used the money to promissory note to the
company. The plaintiff is the legal tender. Even the plaintiff will receive the
transfer of promissory notes and money to the company after the Ministry of
Finance ordered the plaintiff to suspend the operation. But the plaintiff's
attorney at the plaintiff. After the Ministry of Finance ordered the plaintiff
to suspend the operation. Financial Institution Reform Organization Appoints
Speaker of the Board of the Plaintiff This is done by the Financial Institution
Reform Commission under Section 30 of the Financial Sector Reform Act BE 2540
(1997), and the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority The plaintiff's
chairman shall adhere to the interest of the debtor of the plaintiff. The
operation of the plaintiff after the Ministry of Finance ordered to suspend the
operation, it is entered into by the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority
The business of the plaintiff is not a violation of the Ministry of Finance.
Order the Ministry of Finance
to suspend the operation of the business. The order is applicable to the plaintiff,
especially not applicable to the general public. The plaintiff's action is
between the plaintiff and the company and the Ministry of Finance will have to
complain. The impact on the status of the seller, reduce the bills of the
defendant and the status of the issuer of the second defendant, in other words.
To make a contract to reduce bills between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 or
promissory notes that the second defendant to issue or suspend the ticket. I do
not know that the transfer of promissory notes between the plaintiff and the
company is up with the plagiarism. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff in good
faith, so when the promissory note to the defendants 1 and 2 do not use the
ticket. The plaintiff has the power to sue the first and second defendants to
pay the promissory note.
Sale agreement to reduce the
bill if the defendant defaulted 1 defendant, the defendant to default interest
payment at the maximum rate prescribed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims
to submit the Bank of Thailand's interest rates on loans and discounts. And the
interest charged to good customers of the plaintiff. And the book for the
reform of the financial system. It shows that while the defendant is wrong to
sell bills. The plaintiff has the right to default interest at the rate of 21
percent per year, which is not exceeding the maximum interest rate announced by
the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay the interest to the plaintiff.
The defendant did not write a
message to call for interest, but the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 968
(2), Section 985 provides the right to claim interest at the rate of 5 percent
per year, although the plaintiff will not be petitioned. But this is a problem
of public peace. The Supreme Court ruled in accordance with the Civil Code
Section 142 (5), with Section 246 and 247.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3782/2556.
Contract for the guarantee of
the defendant and the defendant a pledge of a pledge to the plaintiff to the
plaintiff to the plaintiff. Although the first debt under the memorandum that
the defendant will have to pay to the plaintiff on May 16, 2001 is still not
finalized, it has the obligation as avalue promissory note to pay the debt to
the plaintiff. If the defendant 1 default and even if the defendant will default
after the death. Aval promissory note has not been terminated because the Aval
promissory note passed. The liability as Aval promissory note is inherited to
the heirs of the road, so the defendants 3, 5 and 6 as the heirs of the road to
the defendant must be jointly liable to the defendant to pay the debt to the
plaintiff. But the defendants 3, 5 and 6 must be jointly liable to the
defendant no more than the estate of the defendants 3, 5 and 6 received from
the inheritance of Section 1601
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6292/2555.
Promissory note is a
promissory note on demand when it is not so when the plaintiff has demanded
that the defendant pay the money and the defendant does not pay the plaintiff
will have the power to sue the defendant liability under the promissory note.
To find the promissory note to be filed with the defendant to pay before the
defendant.
The promissory note is stating
that. Defendants pay interest at the rate of 16 percent per year, whether the
defendant will default or not. The plaintiff is entitled to charge interest
from the defendant at a rate of 16 percent per annum under the contract
already. The interest rate agreement is not a penalties. Only interest that
exceeds 16 percent per annum will be penalized. If the court finds that the
excess of 16 percent per year is too high, the court will reduce it to a
reasonable amount. It will be reduced to or less than 16 percent per year.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3075/2552.
Promissory note with
promissory note promissory note with consistent message. Front of promissory
note The price is pledge and the third defendant signed. The promissory note
promissory note also contains a list of promissory notes that are pledged
together. Show that the third defendant brought the promissory note pledged to
the Securities and Securities Company under the promissory note promissory
note. The third defendant signed the pledge. It is not the case that the third
defendant endorsed the transfer of the promissory note to the SEC Securities
and Commerce, the defendant's third action is to use only the base is the
endorsement of the agent under Section 926 paragraph. Section 985 is not a
endorser who is liable for the endorsement of the money to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1783/2551.
Promissory note And issuers
charge interest at the rate of 16 percent per year is an agreement under
Section 911, 968 (1) contains Section 985, which the law does not place any
restrictions, so the parties will agree. It is not a loan according to the definition.
The interest rate charged in the interest rate specified in the promissory note
at the rate of 16 percent per year is not to be charged interest in excess of
the rate of the offense. Prohibited under Section 654 promissory note and
interest under the promissory note is not void.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8328/2550.
Promissory note for sale of
promissory notes to the defendant as a guarantor to accept. The debtor is a
separate contract from the promissory note issued to the plaintiff to the plaintiff.
The defendant's liability as a guarantor of promissory notes for sale. Send out
the goods It is not mandatory to comply with the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 985, Section 941 to force the person to bring a promissory note to be
filed to spend money on the due date.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
815/2550.
When Bank A. As Aval has spent
money on promissory notes to the Treasury Department, then the Bank of Thailand
will have the right to recourse to the debtor, who is a person who is insured
under the Section. 940, paragraph three, contains Section 985, and in the
absence of specific law. So it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 193/30 when the creditor has been transferred the right to claim aval
promissory note. Creditors will also have the right to demand repayment within
the above age when the creditors submit applications for debt repayment Aval
promissory note to the owner. The creditor does not exceed 10 years.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
405/2550.
Debt under promissory note The
date the defendant, the issuer of the promissory note, promised to use the
money to the plaintiff. It is indefinite that the calendar day. Is on a date
specified in the promissory note. When the defendant and the first defendant
did not pay the promissory note, the defendant was immediately the default. Without
notice under Section 204 paragraph two, even Section 985 shall require Section
941 of the Bill of Exchange shall apply to the promissory note as well. It must
be used as far as the condition of the promissory note. The provisions in the
promissory note. Promissory notes must be issued to the issuer. Or promissory
notes, which will be used at a certain time after seeing only that, under
Section 986, paragraph two, when the promissory note is a ticket with a clear
date of use. Is not in force. Section 986, paragraph two, the plaintiff is not
required to bring promissory notes filed under Section 941 again.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4714/2547.
Section 899 states that
"any text not provided for in this Code If written into bills. You do not
find that message to any effect on the bill "is a general provision
applicable to bills of exchange. Promissory notes and checks, Section 915
states that "Any payer and any endorser shall write down the following
expressly and expressly the same: (1) the terms of limitation or limitation of
their liability to the Bills ?, which is a provision in the bill of exchange is
not provided in the general chapter. As with Section 899 and Section 985, the
provisions in the promissory note do not require Section 915 to apply to promissory
notes. So the third defendant endorsed the promissory note. The endorsement of
the endorsement is not against the text is contrary to Section 983 (2).
Effective for promissory notes under Section 899, the third defendant is liable
under the promissory note.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2752/2540.
According to the Civil and
Commercial Code, 3 separate contract does not stipulate how to sell promissory
notes, specifically, Agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is
no law prohibiting the sale of promissory notes to pay the plaintiffs to file a
claim under the terms of the contract is called. Promissory note sale And the
agreement is not expressly prohibited by law. In this case, even the issuer of
the promissory note, the promissory note is enforceable. Defendant is bound to
be liable under the contract.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5328/2537.
The Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 985, first paragraph does not provide for Section 928 of the Bill of
Exchange shall apply to promissory notes as well. Section 928 shall apply to
promissory notes only in the case under Section 986, paragraph two, provided.
that Promissory notes to be used at a certain time after seeing Section 913
(4), who must submit to the issuer to recognize the receipt to certify the
payment within the time. As stated in Section 928, when a promissory note is a
promissory note, the money will be used when asked under section 913 (3). The
provisions on promissory notes are not mandatory in the case of tickets. The
money will be used at the end of the specified period. The promissory notes
that are used to make money on demand have meaning and effect. Compulsory with
the promissory note when so seen. The plaintiff, the promissory note, falls
under the provisions of Section 944, consisting of Section 985, the first
paragraph shall be filed for payment within six months from the date of entry
into the ticket. So if the lawsuit is heard. The plaintiff has a claim to the
defendant, the issuer of the promissory note, and the defendant, avalanche 2,
used to pay the ticket, then the two defendants do not pay. The plaintiff has
the power to sue the two defendants to use the money. The law on age, the
severity of the creditors, must be translated strictly. When the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1001. The case against the issuer of promissory notes.
It is prohibited to sue three years after the date of the ticket to use such
money, it means that three years from the date of issue of the ticket is not
promissory note is a promissory note to use the money on demand. The date the
plaintiff demanded. The two defendants to use the promissory note is September
4, 2528 is the start date to use the money before the date the plaintiff
demanded the two defendants. There is no obligation to use the money in
accordance with the promissory note. Only the plaintiff has the right to claim
the money immediately and the defendant. Second, the right to pay immediately
by the plaintiff does not have to call only in accordance with the general rule
in Section 203, and on the last day of the Sunday, September 4, 1988, which is
a holiday, it must count the date of commencement of work. Section 161. The
plaintiff filed the lawsuit on September 5, 1988, so it is not over for three
years. Plaintiff's case does not terminate.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2872/2537.
Even promissory notes will be
issued to pay interest on the debt of the defendant. The plaintiff's debt
before it. When the defendant issued a new promissory note repayment. The
amount of the promissory note becomes a new debt and the money is gone. The
plaintiff is entitled to charge interest on the amount of debt. Interest is not
charged interest.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1042/2534.
When the promissory note to
the plaintiff who did not bring the promissory note to the defendant at the
domicile of the defendant to spend money on the ticket. Only a letter to the
defendant promissory note, the plaintiff is not. According to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 985 contains Section 941 forced to hear that the
defendant did not pledge to pay the promissory note to the plaintiff. Even then
it appears that the plaintiff demanded that the defendant and the defendant did
not pay the bill. It is the plaintiffs to conduct the debt. The plaintiff has no
power to sue the defendant. 5 fight that the defendant is not liable to pay a
check to the plaintiff because the plaintiff received a dispute by the
plaintiff. Pledged fraud, the burden of proof to the defendant that 5 must be
attested to the defendant as the defendant claims 5 when the dispute has come
to the defendant that the fifth defendant is obliged to the defendant that the
second breach of contract. The plaintiff has terminated the agreement to sell
the shares and the plaintiff received the transfer of the dispute by knowing
that the contract of sale. The shares between the defendant and the two
defendants were dissolved when the defendant was unable to investigate the
facts. The plaintiff did not receive the transfer of the dispute by plagiarizing
the defendant, defendant 2, the defendant 5 is liable under the dispute as a
payer.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2053/2535.
The defendant's first
promissory note to replace the first promissory note that the defendant issued
to the plaintiff is not repayment of the first promissory note. The first
promissory note has not been suspended because it has not yet been paid. But
changed to a new promissory note, the defendant 2 to guarantee the repayment of
the promissory notes issued by the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount of
not more than 1,000,000 baht, not specified as promissory notes and do not
specify the period. The agreement also guarantees that the guarantee will
remain in effect. Until the bank denies the revocation of the loan. It shows
that the defendant intended to guarantee the debt under the promissory note
unlimited number of copies and unlimited. Time within the limit of not more
than 1,000,000 baht, the defendant must be bound as the guarantor of the first
defendant in the plaintiff to bring the case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1042/2534.
When the promissory note to
the plaintiff who did not bring the promissory note to the defendant at the
domicile of the defendant to spend money on the ticket. Only a letter to the
defendant promissory note, the plaintiff is not. According to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 985 contains Section 941 forced to hear that the
defendant did not pledge to pay the promissory note to the plaintiff. Even then
it appears that the plaintiff demanded that the defendant and the defendant did
not pay the bill. It is the plaintiffs to conduct the debt. The plaintiff has
no power to sue the defendant. 5 fight that the defendant is not liable to pay
a check to the plaintiff because the plaintiff received a dispute by the
plaintiff. Pledged fraud, the burden of proof to the defendant that 5 must be
attested to the defendant as the defendant claims 5 when the dispute has come
to the defendant that the fifth defendant is obliged to the defendant that the
second breach of contract. The plaintiff has terminated the agreement to sell
the shares and the plaintiff received the transfer of the dispute by knowing
that the contract of sale. The shares between the defendant and the two
defendants were dissolved when the defendant was unable to investigate the
facts. The plaintiff did not receive the transfer of the dispute by
plagiarizing the defendant, defendant 2, the defendant 5 is liable under the
dispute as a payer.