Spending Draft

Section 941 of the draft will spend the money on maturity and are due any day. Who shall submit bills to spend money on that day.

Section 942 the draft will force the paying of bills before maturity, you may find you can not.
In addition to paying any money, but the bills are due. That they do so with the sound of their own misfortunes.

Section 943 of the draft, which has to be ordered to spend at the end of the period from the day one can see that. You set the date of approval or objection.
If no objection. The testimonials are not dated. You shall be deemed to have accepted the word of the day at the end of the period, which is restricted by law. The contract for the submission to it.

Section 944 of the draft that provides money when they see it. He said they will spend the day on the draft. The money must be filed within the prescribed time. Which force them to submit the bills are approved for use in a certain period of time after seeing it.

Section 945 of the money will be taken only when a vendor bills the user to make full payment of the bills that he signed.

Section 946 of the draft. If they take the money, but only partially. He will reject you, that it can not accept it.
If you get the money he used, but only partially. He must save it in the bill. And deliver the receipt to the money.

Section 947 does not file a bill to spend money on a day to remember. He is certified to remove themselves from liability by the amount owed to it by them.

Section 948 if they pay the full bill to pay soon. You know who has the right to take recourse to remove them prior to a party which does not agree to pay at that time.

Section 949 within the provisions of Section 1009 shall be used in the determination shall be released from liability. Unless they can make a fraud or serious negligence. In addition, this person must prove the fact that it has been endorsed consecutive uninterrupted. I do not have to prove that the signatures of endorsement.

Supreme Court in 8328/2550.
Contracts, sales contracts, promissory notes, as one of a promissory note issued to the plaintiff. The defendant's liability as guarantor, the three sales contracts, promissory notes above. It is not mandatory to follow the method of Section 985 and Section 941 shall be required to submit bills to spend money on maturity.

The Bankruptcy Court has ordered the reorganization of the sales contract, promissory note. Not affect the liability of defendants in all three. Which is the guarantor of the debt under the promissory note sales. Section 90/60 of the Bankruptcy Act, the plaintiff shall not be sold to reduce debt under the promissory notes to apply for repayment in bankruptcy cases. Does not hold such debt. The defendant did not make it three out of the liability of the guarantor. This may not be the case under Section 697.

Supreme Court to 405/2550.
Promissory notes and debt disputes. Indicates that a defendant who is out of contract, promissory note will be paid to the plaintiff. The debt is scheduled as a day of the calendar. The date specified in the promissory note. When determining when and where a defendant does not pay the bills, the defendant, therefore, constitute an immediate default. Without notice under Section 204, paragraph two, despite the provisions of Section 985 to Section 941 of the bill comes into force on the promissory note with it. However, it is not as contrary to the promissory notes. The provisions in the promissory note. Promissory notes will be issued to those who write about.It is in Section 986, paragraph two, the plaintiff was not required to file a case under Section 941 and promissory notes.

Supreme Court in 5328/2537.
Promissory note dispute that the defendants have made clear that a contract will amount to 8 million Baht to the plaintiff on demand. We see that the maturity of the notes using the dispute to date. Plaintiffs claim the money at the beginning of Section 913 (3) is in no way be interpreted as a promissory note of the money when they see any bills that spend money on demand meaningful and effective with. ticket When they see the money. If the dispute which called for the payment of promissory notes payable on demand. So do not fall under the provisions of Section 944 of the first paragraph of Article 985 shall apply to the use of money within six months from the date of the ticket. Promissory notes, bills of rights is to use the money on demand. Plaintiff's claim is dated September 4, 2528 is beginning to be used. Of age on the last day of Sunday, September 4, 2531, a week since I started working with the Civil. And Commercial Section 161 (original) The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on September 5, 2531 is not beyond three years. Not terminate the plaintiff's case under section 1001 petition that the defendant does not dispute the debt, promissory note. However, the two defendants to raise the issue without this clause as a defense. Court did not determine an issue in dispute. The Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal decision is picking up. I was diagnosed with non-defense issues. It is not picking up that it was like in the District Court and Court of Appeal. Supreme Court decision is not accepted by the Code of Civil Procedure Section 249, paragraph one.

Supreme Court in 3340/2536.
Aval promissory note shall have the obligation is a debt which is issued by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 940, first paragraph, to sue the aval promissory note shall be filed within 3 years from the date to maturity pursuant to Section 1001 of promissory notes. Not for money. Promissory notes must be regarded as any kind of money when they see the second paragraph of Section 984 which requires payment of a promissory note shall be in accordance with chapter The bill also stipulates that the money should be spent on that type under Section 944 of the 985 days on the ticket. However, the money must be filed within the prescribed time, which forced them to give. Acceptance of bills of credit for a certain time after seeing it. For which the deadline for the submission to be accepted. Bills are to be used in a certain period of time after he had seen. Section 928 is that the bills submitted for approval within six months from the date of the bills or At slow speed, but the payer is listed. He notes that any kind of money. When you see may be the ticket to the ticket money from the ticket that. The date of the ticket, but will later be extended to use the money for 6 months from the date the ticket was not. The time spent on tickets. The use of their money when they see it from the date the ticket was due until six months from the date of the ticket. The last day that may apply, depending upon the amount that would be the ticket. Use the money any day. Promissory note dispute dated January 31, 2520 at the end of six months from the date the ticket is dated July 31, 2520 does not appear that the debtor is a person who holds promissory note dispute taken to apply to the use of funds must be considered on July 31, 2520. The last date on which the petitioner may be forced to spend the money, according to promissory notes, the dispute is a dispute about the use of promissory notes. The 3-year-old star of the 1001 must start from the date when the debtor's right to oppose it. I let her spend the money on December 2, 2530 to terminate the Section. 1001 the opposition has no right to demand that she take the money, according to promissory note dispute.

Supreme Court in 1042/2534.
On the promissory notes payable to the plaintiff, who has not been filed by the defendants at the domicile of the defendant to spend money on tickets. I have a claim to the plaintiff nor the defendant issuer of promissory notes. Follow the procedures under Section 985 of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 941, thus forcing them to listen is not that the defendant committed a non-payment of promissory notes to the plaintiff. It would appear that the plaintiff demanded the defendant and the defendant does not have to pay it. The plaintiff's claim for general liability. The plaintiff sued the defendant has no power against the five defendants to 5 shall be liable to pay by check to the plaintiff because the plaintiff's case be transferred out by the dispute. Terrorism cooperation is fraudulent, the burden of proof falls upon the defendant to 5 to attest to listen to the defendant's fifth claim, check the dispute was a debt the defendant, five shall serve as proof that the defendant's second breach of contract. sting Hni. has terminated the contract of sale and the plaintiff received in settlement by knowing that the purchase agreement. 2, with a share of the defendant. Abandoned when the defendant can be traced to the fact that 5 is not it. So I do not dispute that the plaintiff by the terrorism cooperation and transfer of check fraud, the defendant is liable under the 5 second defendant in the dispute as a payer.

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 1409/2514.
The defendant issued a check payable to holders of non-dated check is given. But when the check is in the possession of the plaintiff's. This is the check that was already dated check. Be by any person not to be important. When that day does not check that it is wrong and that without faith it is considered as a check list to complete and check it by any person. It is not important. When that day does not check that it is wrong and that without faith it is considered as a check list and check the completeness of processing. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 910 and 989.

Supreme Court in 1595/2509.
Defendant to pay plaintiff a check for the third defendant as endorser. The check is due and the plaintiff's account. But the bank refused to pay. Payer and the three defendants must jointly endorse and is liable to the plaintiff, a holder under the Code. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 967, the third defendant to be a debtor with a non-defendant as a guarantor. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 700 and 948 do not come into force.

Read More

Aval Bank

Section 927 the draft will be submitted to the payer at the address of the payer. So when I accepted it until it's time to take the money and who will be the only one who will lead them to be in possession time.
In the draft. Payer will be required to certify that the applicant is required to apply for a limited time. Or schedule a time.
Payer bill would prohibit the applicant to certify it. Except in the case of bills which have been ordered to take the money out at any other place other than the domicile of the payer. Or to make money at any time since he had seen.
The payer will be the requirement that it shall not be qualified to apply for one day before the scheduled time.
Everyone will be required to endorse that. The bills submitted for approval. The time limit for filing. Or schedule a time. Unless the payment is not guaranteed.

Section 928 the bill is ordered to spend time at the end of the one after seeing it. Bills must be submitted for approval within six months from the date of the bills sooner or later in time, as the payer to be identified.

Section 929 within the Section 927 provisions, the bill has the right to submit bills to pay immediately for approval. If he does not endorse, and within twenty-four hours a gem. He has the right to protest.

Section 930 of the bill, so he accepted it. He does not have to release it into the hands of the payer.
In addition to paying their bills will be submitted for a second time, the day after the date of filing the first time. You shall not remove the parties whose interests are not pursuant to this order as a defense. Unless it is stated in the objection.

Section 931 of the certification should be done with it in front of the bill as written words, phrases as "certified" or something else, something like that. The signature of the payer. The only sign of settling down in front of the bill. He held that it is approved.

Section 932 the draft to make money in a period of one year from the date of the bill. If it is not dated. Or bills to make money in any one period since has seen. If the certificate is not signed on to the bill as it is today. You will note that the full-day ticket or endorsement by that time. It should be used accordingly.
Furthermore, he stated that In that case, the error made in good faith, but dated to the misunderstanding. And if it all down. If the bill was later defeated by the hands full with the law. Bills are lost because they do not. The bills are still available. And shall be used as well just write down the date that is the actual day.

Section 933 if the certification is not dated. You shall be the last day of the period laid down to ensure it is approved.

Section 934 if they pay the bills and wrote testimonials. If I cross out the first bills out of their hands soon. You shall be deemed that the denial is not guaranteed. However, if the payer has been notified in writing to the holder. Or another party which has signed the bills that he endorsed the bill before then. Therefore, the cross certify to the gem. He said the pay would be bound by the certification body which he had written himself.

Section 935 of the certification shall be in two places. Is guaranteed forever. Or certified shift
Guaranteed forever. The agreement would not resolve the controversial order of the payer, but one at all.
To avert such certification. The body is made of the แผk bills from a set order.
In particular, it is. If approved it with conditions. Or assure you that it is only a part of shift

Section 936 certified to avert. He will reject the bill was lost. And if it does not guarantee that its shift To equate the false belief that the bills be approved.
If the holder receives the certified shift And payable to or endorsed by the expression, the empowerment is not clear whether or not to accept such representations avert it. I do not agree with it later. Payer or a person that would endorse the release of liability under the provisions of the bill, but you shall not apply to the certification, but some of which have already been told this.
If the notes payable to any endorsement of notice of the dispute to avert not, who within a reasonable time. You shall be deemed to have consented shall be paid or endorsed by the then.

Section 937 of the bill to be paid will be bound to pay the amount approved in the context of their testimonials.

Section 938 bill is the guarantor guarantees to pay the entire amount or part time. Which he called "aval".
Aval is the third one will be the recipient. Or even a party to the bills of any party is receiving them.

Section 939 makes it an Aval also written into the bill itself. Or counterfoil
In this case the wording should be used. "Available as aval" or other similar expressions that Aval and signed.
The only sign in front of the aval on bills. He held that it is aval. Except in the case of the signature of the payer or the payer.
In the Aval to guarantee that no person shall be guaranteed unless the payer.

Section 940 would be aval is bound to the same person whom the insurance.
Even the money that liability insurance is an aval, it becomes unusable for any reason other than because it is a mess. He promised that the aval is still incomplete.
Aval on spending the money then. Shall be entitled to take recourse to a person whom I will not guarantee it. Both parties have the responsibility of the person.

Supreme Court in 8296/2551.
The defendant a check made payable to bearer shall be transferred only by delivery to under Section 918, 989 plaintiffs in the transferee as the holder and a holder under the Civil and Commercial Code Section 904 has sued both the defendant liable under check. Both defendants were sued in debt by the bills are not fighting out who is the plaintiff with a defense that relies on personal relations between the province, the former except that the transfer will take place with terrorism cooperation is fraudulent as defined in Section 916 Section 989 of the testimony of the defendant and the defendant only as a check made payable to the province with no debt. It is guaranteed to play shared between them. Notice of such a nature that the relationship between the defendant a check made payable to the province, which is full of people before. Therefore, the defendant will raise such a relationship is a defense to the plaintiff, who checks that the check does not have the same debt. Prohibited under these provisions.

The two defendants did not provide expressly that the transfer of check fraud and how terrorism cooperation. And initially assume that the plaintiff was in good faith in accordance with Section 5 of the Province, the plaintiff sued the defendants in both cases it is not a defense that the defendant will raise both the lean the plaintiff under Section 904 and Section 916 and Section 989 provides that a defendant either. Plaintiff exercised in bad faith, it is clear that the plaintiff does not describe how bad faith. The two are not favored by the defendant P.wi.p. Section 177 paragraph two shall not give rise to disputes and litigation matters. The defendant, a sign the checks defendant 1 should be liable for the contents of the check in accordance with Section 900 on the bank refused to cash the check the defendant is a liable for the check to the plaintiff under Section 914 of the 989 which The defendant received a share of the province, it's not just the province directly to the admonition that a defendant is not involved in the case of an endorsement on the fact that the second hearing that the defendant is a signatory. check payable to the defendant liable under the text in the two bills as a sign of endorsement in order to use the money to shareholders, it would sweep away their responsibility to do. The defendant's position as a guarantee or aval for the second payer. When the bank refused to cash the check, the second defendant to be bound by the same defendant in a Section 989 and Section 921 940.

Supreme Court to 815/2550.
Aval Bank was the recipient of a payment under the promissory note to the Office Depot next to the bank at the recourse would be right in the debtor is a party or their insurance Section 940. the third paragraph of Article 985 and the absence of legal age in particular. The age of 10 years, creditors have been transferred under section 193/30 on the debt claims on the promissory note Aval. The bank was a creditor of the debtor shall be entitled to demand payment within the above time as well.
Aval Bank for the use of promissory notes to the accounts on November 25, 2540, the day due to the use of money. The creditors filed an application for repayment of the debt, promissory note to you Aval. Employees receivership on March 22, 2545 to no more than 10 years, claims of creditors can not terminate the.

Supreme Court in 6054/2550.
The Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited (), which pays the bills were signed in, it is certified under Section 927 must be bound to pay the amount certified by the certification body of their compliance. Section 937 of the debtor and the one with the defendant, one of which is payable to the defendant that one is not in a position to be committed before the Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited () under Section 967, paragraph three, so when the Bank of Thailand. Ltd. (PCL) has been paid to the company, Toyota Motor (Thailand) Ltd., which is the honoring of 92 copies to the Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited () is the recourse that the defendant is one who commands. can not afford it. When there is no recourse then. Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited (), it shall have no claim to be transferred to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant has no power in this case is a problem with the power to sue is an issue relating to public order. Even during the discretion of the court. Both defendants waived the issue to this dispute. The two defendants were entitled to raise claims in the appeal under section 225 paragraph two Civil Procedure Code.

Supreme Court in 6260/2550.
Although all three defendants liable for the debt to be different. But the fact that the underlying cause of the debt that the plaintiff sued for acts arising from the plaintiff and the defendant hired a debt unpaid wages, the same three defendants have a joint interest in accordance with the law. It held that the defendant, the three stakeholders in the value of the case. The plaintiff sued the defendant, the three together in the same case as Civil Procedure Code Section 59.

Despite the fact that listening to the testimony of the defendant, the three defendants, the third payment in settlement of the four copies to the defendant, the two do not have to pay and the plaintiff is the date in case of four and the plaintiff received. transfer to the four already in dispute. But the fact that three pay checks by the day prescribed are listed in the defendant to three to allow full checks on it as expedient to charge the check of the defendant to 3 to pay the debt. So who is the plaintiff in the legal dispute with the four to be held at any time. When the four checks to the dispute. Check payable to the plaintiff, dated as of May 15, 2538 Number 2 Issue Date May 25, 2538, and the number 2 and leaves in the night. The bank the check was refused payment by check case four copies on May 17, 2538, 2 copies and the date May 25, 2538, 2 the plaintiff brought the case to court on May 15, 2539 to the expiration of one year. after the payment date is May 15, 2538 and on May 25, 2538 did not terminate the plaintiff's case.

Supreme Court in 3269/2548.
Plaintiff to the defendant on a promissory note is not aval in as a bank guarantee (aval), the first defendant to use the money to the holders of promissory notes and the contingent liability to the plaintiff. He is the first defendant on the plaintiff to pay the bills for the plaintiffs, who represented a defendant would take recourse to remove a defendant under Section 940 of the first paragraph, the defendant is liable. spend the night under the promissory note to the plaintiff.
Defendant No. 2 issued promissory notes to the defendant at first to be pledged to the plaintiff as security for the plaintiff, not aval promissory note to the defendant, the one which under the pledge agreement that if the defendant that a default on payment to the plaintiff, allow the plaintiff to call. collection of two promissory notes of the defendant that the defendant has the second is a reform of the financial system (Prs.) an order prohibiting the defendant to pay two creditors. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff against the defendant on plaintiff's loan agreement, the two still have not received payment from the defendant to two promissory notes that are pledged. Obligations under the contract that the plaintiff did not hold Aval. It does not make a defendant from liability.

Supreme Court in 5050/2547.
The plaintiff accepted the payment of a promissory note which the defendant is issued as a result of aval defendant has made a request to endorse the bills of the plaintiff. Shows clearly that the intent of the plaintiff and a defendant who seeks to bind directly to the legal relationship between the request to certify the amount and type of contract which can be considered as binding a force as well. Separately from the plaintiff's legal obligation promissory notes shall be aval. The defendant disputed the amount that a ticket is issued so that the money spent by the plaintiff that the promissory note. A. The right of recourse to the Partnership for a defendant to liability under the request of the said bills. The plaintiff sued the defendant liable under a promissory note after the expiration of 3 years from the date of the promissory note to which such disputed claims of Terminate the plaintiff, according to promissory notes in accordance with Section 1001, but claims of the plaintiff to sue to force a defendant liable for the debt arising from a request to endorse a bill that made the defendant to the plaintiff. persists. And claims of the plaintiff in this case. No law, statute or otherwise. The 10-year time limit under Section 193/30 is the case when the plaintiff sued the defendant as a liability under such claims. Which is the expiration of ten years. Does not terminate the litigation.

Supreme Court to 803/2545.
Case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for the money plus interest in the dispute. Even if the plaintiff does not describe whether the plaintiff has been in dispute with any debt. It is only the details that will attest to the floor for further consideration. Not cause the plaintiff's complaint, dark The plaintiff has filed with the Code of Civil Procedure Section 172, paragraph two.
The defendant, who is bidding to have a shared duty bound by the agreement to send money. Night checks payable to the dispute to the auction does not. Or check payable to the dispute with the leader, I share to give to those who have not bid. Which is in dispute, the debt to each other when the plaintiff is in dispute. Check who is in possession of a grade given for payment of shares. Or whether the plaintiff received from the defendant directly. The plaintiff, who is in dispute under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 904, the later he was sharing his music and share this fall. Plaintiffs have exhausted the opportunity to tender shares in the future. I like to call the plaintiff to the defendant payment of shares to be returned to the plaintiff. So when the share fell from falling share this band. Plaintiffs prefer to date on the check payable to the dispute and the charge of the bank. The plaintiff was ever lawfully issued and the date the settlement check into it. Is the actual day. The check is not the defendant disputes the charge payer is liable to pay. According to the plaintiff in the dispute under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 914 and Section 989.

Supreme Court in 3509/2542.
Check a negotiable instrument that requires trust between the payer and who will check that when the bill will be paid by check. Therefore, any provisions which prohibit or restrict the payment will be. Must be in accordance with the provisions of the law. Check out the dispute by the defendant in the black lines on it. When there is no provision of law authorizing that action. Such statements should not be one to check that under the Code. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 899 of the defendant dated check does not check it. When the plaintiff is in dispute and taken into account. Plaintiff or bank checks are dated in the paragraph under Section 910 and Section 989 B. The defendant issued a check payable to the payee. But does not cross out the words "or bearer" to the defendant claims that would check the name. But with a well-proportioned of the defendant does not cross out the words "or bearer" are not in dispute, it must be regarded as a check holder. Plaintiff's signature endorsing the check, the check holder disputes. Have the effect of insurance. Or aval payer. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 921 and Section 989, an aval by operation of law. Not Aval Section 939 does not have to write. Says. Also available is aval.

Supreme Court in 4872/2533.
The second defendant denied that their signature on the back of the check is not disputed that the plaintiff, the defendant's testimony that two individuals who signed the back in case. In the case that the defendant signed a second agreement, your attorney, mortgage application and provide evidence on the issues directly. The court has the power to detect the signature of such a comparison. To weigh the evidence that Enough to obey or not. This case the debt is not debt, borrowing one million baht loan agreement together. But with the mortgaged property as collateral and held as evidence in a mortgage agreement. Borrowing money The defendant. A check payable to dispute the amount of USD 1 million grant to the plaintiff agreed to insure. Check out the dispute was to secure a loan. The plaintiff has the right to sue to enforce the mortgage without prior notice. The defendant signed a second behind the check payable to the Registrar. Plaintiff or cross out the word that holds the top left corner of the front and a message that the account payee only Hgameplieinmืa. The check did not appear to contain expressions that can be aval. Similarly, the defendant or any other case, the two are not a sign that the defendant is not aval to the back of the checks signed by two defendants. 1 is payable by the payee named plaintiff and the defendant presented two checks to. The Court held that the second defendant to sign the back of the check to the plaintiff's voluntary commitment to the Lord. In order to check their liability in a case where a payer with his signature on the check under Section 900 of the Civil and Commercial Code. When the bank refuses to pay the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff's case with interest payments by check.

Supreme Court in 4048/2534.
According to records of loans labeled as a defendant, the plaintiff issued the loan in case the plaintiff as collateral for a loan, however. When recording the fact that two people endorsing the aval in dispute is not a party to the defendant, the two do not remove the Agreement according to the plaintiff and the defendant is one to do it is the intent of the defendant No. 2 was on the defendant. According to a repayment loan, the plaintiff has completed the second defendant would be liable to the plaintiff claimed that it has not. When the second defendant does not make that fight. Plaintiffs fill the date on which the check payable to the dispute itself. The defendant did not claim the second payment under the loan agreement, the two defendants and barred from testimony in the matter under Section 249 P.wi.p..

Supreme Court in 4872/2533.
The second defendant denied that their signature on the back of the check is not disputed that the plaintiff, the defendant's testimony that two individuals who signed the back in case. In the case that the defendant signed a second agreement, your attorney, mortgage application and provide evidence on the issues directly. The court has the power to detect the signature of such a comparison. To weigh the evidence that Enough to obey or not. This case the debt is not debt, borrowing one million baht loan agreement together. But with the mortgaged property as collateral and held as evidence in a mortgage agreement. Borrowing money The defendant. A check payable to dispute the amount of USD 1 million grant to the plaintiff agreed to insure. Check out the dispute was to secure a loan. The plaintiff has the right to sue to enforce the mortgage without prior notice. The defendant signed a second behind the check payable to the Registrar. Plaintiff or cross out the word that holds the top left corner of the front and a message that the account payee only Hgameplieinmืa. The check did not appear to contain expressions that can be aval. Similarly, the defendant or any other case, the two are not a sign that the defendant is not aval to the back of the checks signed by two defendants. 1 is payable by the payee named plaintiff and the defendant presented two checks to. The Court held that the second defendant to sign the back of the check to the plaintiff's voluntary commitment to the Lord. In order to check their liability in a case where a payer with his signature on the check under Section 900 of the Civil and Commercial Code. When the bank refuses to pay the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff's case with interest payments by check. Plaintiff's request to both the plaintiff until the defendant to pay the interest payment is made. Seen as wrong because there is only one claimant will be required to pay the plaintiff. Interest to the plaintiff would not. In the other lawsuit against the two defendants to pay all the interest. It is the plaintiff and defendant to pay interest to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff asked to pay interest to sue. Courts have ruled that the date payment is made by the Court.

Supreme Court to 815/2533.
Plaintiff notes that the Company has aval. Issued to the defendant as a manager of the T. Company. Has secured a contract for the plaintiffs said. If the plaintiff has paid the bills. The defendant refused to pay such money to the plaintiff on the promissory note to the Company. To extend the repayment of promissory notes issued to the T. He and two new promissory notes issued by both. Plaintiffs have promissory notes, both the Aval At the request of the Company. But the final bills are due. The plaintiff has paid the debt, according to promissory notes to the T. As the demands. On promissory notes and the new debt from the first notes and the contract guarantees a defendant the plaintiff has made me that. Defendants plead guilty to reimburse the plaintiff for the plaintiff to pay its bills and Aval. In an amount only. I have a personal statement to be issued, and money is not. The guarantee states that if the plaintiff was granted time to pay off. Bills agreed to by the defendant in a period of time every time. The plaintiff did not notice before. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff in the plaintiff's promissory note to get back with Aval.

Supreme Court in 3590/2536.
The defendants dispute the debt issue to the plaintiff as a loan and taking cash in exchange for payment on the due date of the plaintiff's claim for payment shall be promptly The plaintiff, dated the defendant did not pay in check payable to the date. After the plaintiff demanded the defendant pay the debt. He held that the plaintiff is a legitimate check. Take a day to act in good faith in order to pay for the actual check. According to the Civil and Section 910 of the first paragraph of Section 989.

Supreme Court in 2755/2538.
Creditors, who pay the bills and was certified to be bound to pay according to the flesh. The testimonials of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 937 would be in a position. Primary debtor, the debtor is a debtor who is ordered to pay the bill. Not in a position that had been previously payable under section 967, paragraph three. Creditors have no recourse to enforce against the debtor.

Supreme Court in 3340/2536.
Aval promissory note shall have the obligation is a debt which is issued by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 940, first paragraph, to sue the aval promissory note shall be filed within 3 years from the date to maturity pursuant to Section 1001 of promissory notes. Not for money. Promissory notes must be regarded as any kind of money when they see the second paragraph of Section 984 which requires payment of a promissory note shall be in accordance with chapter The bill also stipulates that the money should be spent on that type under Section 944 of the 985 days on the ticket. However, the money must be filed within the prescribed time, which forced them to give. Acceptance of bills of credit for a certain time after seeing it. For which the deadline for the submission to be accepted. Bills are to be used in a certain period of time after he had seen. Section 928 is that the bills submitted for approval within six months from the date of the bills or At slow speed, but the payer is listed. He notes that any kind of money. When you see may be the ticket to the ticket money from the ticket that. The date of the ticket, but will later be extended to use the money for 6 months from the date the ticket was not. The time spent on tickets. The use of their money when they see it from the date the ticket was due until six months from the date of the ticket. The last day that may apply, depending upon the amount that would be the ticket. Use the money any day. Promissory note dispute dated January 31, 2520 at the end of six months from the date the ticket is dated July 31, 2520 does not appear that the debtor is a person who holds promissory note dispute taken to apply to the use of funds must be considered on July 31, 2520. The last date on which the petitioner may be forced to spend the money, according to promissory notes, the dispute is a dispute about the use of promissory notes. The 3-year-old star of the 1001 must start from the date when the debtor's right to oppose it. I let her spend the money on December 2, 2530 to terminate the Section. 1001 the opposition has no right to demand that she take the money, according to promissory note dispute.

Supreme Court to 199/2532.
The plaintiff, which He notes that the kind of money on demand. Written notice to the defendant and the defendant a ticket for the two promissory notes and money aval. However, the two defendants do not settle. The plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the money. The promissory notes to pay on demand. Do not fall under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Section 944 and Section 985, first paragraph, the holder must take to apply to the use of money within six months from the date of the ticket.

Supreme Court in 2516/2530.
The plaintiff sued the company for lecturing. Issued a draft order the defendant to pay to the Bank. Helicopter Company, a bank representative. And as banker to the payee bank draft endorsed Defence Ministry to the Ministry, the Bank has managed to endorse the bill of the defendant. When the defendant fails to allow the bill to be paid to the bank a. Company. Assigned to the plaintiff as a follow up call to the defendant to pay the banker a. endorsing the bill to the plaintiff as a manager instead. Endorsement of the bank under Section 925 a. to endorse the plaintiff's endorsement is representative of the Company. Which is as follows: The plaintiff sued the defendant can not even describe Eclืabclum sue that "Helicopter Bank has endorsed the bank. a. act on behalf of "the plaintiff filed a resolution that" Company. was assigned to act on behalf of the plaintiff, "plaintiff's complaint is not ambiguous In exchange, according to Section 909 (3) states only that "the name. The brand pays "is assumed to be labeled. "Paid" with the Section 909 (8) states only that "signature payer" need not have written that. "Payer" when the helicopter banks, money exchange. He has endorsed a draft bill to the bank A. Bank A management representative and endorsed to the plaintiff. It was ever issued and plaintiffs are entitled to all due to the ticket. Shall be in accordance with Section 925 the plaintiff was therefore entitled to demand payment under the bill. And prosecution of the defendants named in the bill itself and the company's brand and signature of authorized company representatives had signed with another. A means of exchange. It held that the defendant pays.

Supreme Court to 833/2523.
The bill orders the defendant to the plaintiff bank to pay the defendant's first three orders or instructions. The third branch of the defendant to pay the bill and signed the front of the message. 'Aval guarantee the payer has to be the signature of Bank Aval is the third defendant. The aval is paid under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 938, paragraph two, the final episode.
Section 939, paragraph three which states that 'However, only a sign in front of the aval bill. He held that it is aval. Unless it is signed by the payer or the payer 'means. If the sign in front of the bill without a single word expressions. As provided in paragraph two. Laws should not be regarded as the aval. I signed an endorsement of such payments under Section 931, Section 939, paragraph three, if not already, except that it is both a guarantee of payment and a unique Aval. May not know that sign in any position.
Bank Aval is the recipient of three defendants to be compelled under Section 940 is the third defendant, the plaintiff is bound by the same payer. The three defendants in their respective fields honored Aval it is in accordance with the law. The plaintiff paid the defendant has no power to ban three payment.
Authority is prohibited under Section 992 provisions on matters in particular will not apply to bills of exchange.

Read More

Issuing and endorsing the Draft

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.

Read More

Bill

Section 898 of bills within the meaning of this Code is one of three categories: one is issued. Promissory notes, one of the checks.

Section 899 of the text which is not provided for in this Code. Is written into the bill. You will then find that the message is one of the bills are not.

Section 900 who have signed their bills. Body is liable under the bill.
If the only sign of any such mark or fingerprints on it as a sign that bill soon. Even if the witnesses sign it. The result is that you sign the bill does not.

Section 901 if the person who signed their bills. It is not a statement that a person acting on behalf of another gem. That person would be liable under the bill.

Section 902 of the bills signed by several persons. A person may not be a party to the bill at all. Or is it not a gem. You know that there are not wound up the liability of third parties which are liable under the bill.

Section 903 of the money bills. You shall not give relief.

Section 904 which means that a person who is in possession of bills. The base is a beneficiary. Or the endorsement. If a bill payable to bearer, it is the most common.

Section 905 within the provisions of Section 1008 who was in possession of bills. If it appears to the right by endorsing the continuous Even if the endorsement is the endorsement of the floating matter. You shall be deemed to be lawfully When the float has been endorsed by the other party endorsements. You are the person who signed the biggest endorsement of them. The bill, which has been endorsed by the float. The endorsement on the cross, then you are treated as not having it.
If any person should be free exchange of possession. You know who has the rights to their tickets based on how those in the preceding paragraph. I do not need to take notes. Unless obtained by fraud. Or with serious negligence.
The text in this paragraph. Shall apply to all holders of bills payable to holders as well.

Section 906 that the parties were before it, including the payer. Or issuing bills, and endorsed by the former.

Section 907 was no endorsement on the bill, which will continue to remember you are authorized to remove the paper labels attached to the bill known as the counterfoil The bills are part of it.
Endorsement of the application period for the first time to write notes on what was on the cards for me.

Supreme Court in 2545/2553.
This case was referred to a debt repayment due to a breach of contract, bills discounted. The plaintiff sued the bank debt in the case of a call to pay by check as payment. The different types of transactions. The liability of the defendant is subject to the agreement to sell the bills. When the bank refused to cash the check. Plaintiff to bring an action against the Bank, there have been a compromise agreement by the Bank loan debt to the plaintiff, the Bank will pay the debt to the plaintiff until the amount is only a liability in the case of the Bank. The plaintiff sued to block the only But in the sales contracts, bills discounted. Plaintiffs prefer to use the money is paid back each time to pay the interest that accrued before The rest is applied towards payment of principal payable in respect of each tranche in accordance with Section 329, first paragraph.

Supreme Court in 3319/2552.
The defendant signed a check payable to dispute the amount of 200,000 baht to the plaintiff, check to be paid. The bank the check was refused payment by arguing that not enough money in the account to pay. The decision by the Supreme Court has required that the Plaintiffs. The defendant will be liable to the plaintiff as a number. The Court of Appeal Region 3 that this case ruled that the defendant signed a check payable to the plaintiff, but disputed the amount of 200,000 baht to 100,000 baht debt to the defendant and the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, only 100,000 of the defendant's claim that by listening. If the defendant is liable, it shall order a credit check, MP checks each second to 50,000 baht and 100,000 baht, the defendant's signature endorsing the check, the two only. The defendant requested the court to order the book, cash account of the plaintiff to show a list of the money to pay all of the days between September 17, 2539 until July 15, 2540, and between 1. June 2543 until August 30, 2543, the documents in the possession of the plaintiff's evidence. To prove the claim of the defendant but the plaintiff failed to submit such documents to the court. Appeal Region 3 has ruled that the plaintiff did not comply with the order of the court documents, without reasonable cause. The fact of the defendant's claim that the defendant's debt to the plaintiff's acceptance of up to 100,000 baht Joe P.wi.p. provisions of Section 123 shall be liable to the plaintiff by the defendant is in dispute, it is only 100,000. The presumption under Section 123 shall not apply to such cases. The defendant claims that the original documents in the possession of the plaintiff, the defendant will be referred to as evidence must be evidence that the witnesses could prove the key issues in directly. This case can serve as proof of the defendant, who is from that. Check payable to the defendant disputes the plaintiff in the year 2541, the documentary evidence that the defendant asked the court from the plaintiff. The book, cash account of the plaintiff during the period September 17, 2539 until July 25, 2540, and during the period June 1, 2543 to August 13, 2543, not in the length of time a defendant claims to have paid in settlement to the plaintiff, so. Although the defendant requested and the defendant can prove that any checks are cut out to sell to Joe, or there is evidence that the defendant owed the plaintiff the amount. It is important to have clear evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant signed a check payable to the plaintiff to dispute the amount of Baht 200,000 per claimant, which is like a check, the check to the bank to cash the check but the bank refused to pay. Defendants are liable under the body of the check in accordance with Section 900 paragraph one.

Supreme Court to 521/2552.
The Court determined that the dispute. In dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant both. The defendants, one of the debt or not. The plaintiff, who checked into the possession of a lawfully or not. The fact that the Court of Appeal hearing. Plaintiff's attorney to the defendant, the two contracts, land of the plaintiff and the building of the defendant, a defendant in a settlement of the land to the defendant, two complete, but accused the two did not get the money remaining to be delivered. The plaintiff accused the two proposed sale of land and the wife of defendant No. 2 for the defendant, a defendant, an issue disputed the fact that two defendants, the two endorsements in dispute to be given to the plaintiff to pay for that part. to which the Court of Appeal has ruled that in disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant both. Or the defendant one debt to each other. And receive a check from the plaintiff was in possession as owner by law. Issues and disputes. The Court of Appeal has ruled on the issue continued. Both defendants are jointly liable to pay by check to the plaintiff or not. Lopez has not ruled on the issue beyond dispute that the Court of Appeal that the plaintiff was ever in conflict with the law. It further ruled that the defendant must both be jointly liable to the plaintiff to pay by check or by Section 900.

Defendant signed a check payable to the settlement of disputes, the second wife of the defendant to the second defendant in a dispute between the two defendants with the same debt. When the defendant second signature endorsing the check was delivered to the disputed land to the plaintiff to pay the second defendant owed the plaintiff existed. The plaintiff, who is in conflict with the law. The two defendants who sign the checks would be liable under the dispute settlement body in check, and the defendant is being sued in a check data. He may struggle to find a defense to a personal relationship between the payer or who they were before, except that the transfer will not have to cheat with terrorism cooperation.

Supreme Court in 9384/2552.
Assigned to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's money to bail Sat g Court. The defendant received money from the MP to take action when the case reached the Court of First Instance ordered the insurance money payable by the bank district, a defendant is the payee. Defendants who are in a position in the money base is expected to submit a check to the bank to cash his check only. The defendant shall be used to pay the bank the check is not the defendant received money or property on which the defendant had a duty to deliver to the plaintiff which is in accordance with Section 810 directly. defendant fails to pay such money to the plaintiff. It is that the plaintiff is entitled to payment of the property of the defendant. Including money or other property. That the defendant owed to such third parties in accordance with Section 214 the plaintiff had no right to compel the defendant to withdraw from the bank the check given to the plaintiff. It also asked the banks, which are used by third parties in such cases the plaintiff does not.

The plaintiff's complaint has been filed, the defendant forced to withdraw by check payable to the plaintiff the amount of 70,000 Baht can be considered a complaint seeking to force the defendant to pay a debt payment. It can not be forced to act against the defendant. The court also sentenced the defendant to the plaintiff for such payments.

Supreme Court in 5526/2552.
Any person who is in the law would be considered under Section 904, which refers to persons who are in possession of the bills as a receiver or receiver and is endorsing a bill payable to bearer. Holders, it is the holder as well, so the fact that the bank refused to pay the check. He is in dispute in the plaintiff's right to Wed am and Mon, which is as a person, not three. The third person, all three are related, as representatives of the plaintiff in a check to the plaintiff's claim to the disputed matter. However, it does not cause the plaintiff's legal rights as a holder in any way. When it appears that the bank refuses to pay the check in dispute. The plaintiff, who is not in dispute. The plaintiff is not injured by the offense. Act offenses arising from the use of checks. It has no official complaint to prosecute the defendant. The plaintiff has no power to sue.

Supreme Court to 10595/2551.
Person who have right in checks the holder has the right to transfer by delivering a check to the plaintiff by the defendant must have a legal relationship with the defendant, who paid not by Section 918 and Section 989 paragraph one and check it is in dispute. possession of the plaintiff, as held by the plaintiff claims to have a cash redemption of the plaintiff. Against the plaintiff and the defendant does not make the transferee in bad faith. So that the plaintiff was transferred to a bona fide dispute in accordance with Section 5, the plaintiff would be in dispute in accordance with Section 904 and has the right to take out the actual check. Check that the defendant did not dispute the date prescribed by Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one paragraph in dispute is in complete accordance with the law.

The defendant, the defendant's contention that the settlement check made payable to the beach. The agreement shall not apply to cash checks from the bank. Subsequently, the offset between the defendant's help. Then no longer dispute the debt, then the check. The fight against the plaintiff, who by virtue of the individual defendants related to the channel. Which is ever before under Section 916 and Section 989 paragraph one, the law gives the relationship between the payer. Most people who have to struggle up the beach. or the next person who disputes the plaintiff by the terrorism cooperation and transfer of check fraud. The defendant was the defense that the debt is in dispute between the plaintiff did not fight. The fact that the defendant received and signed checks payable to the dispute and the bank refuses to pay the check. The defendant is in default shall be liable for the payment by check to the plaintiff with interest rates of 7.5 percent per year, according to Section 900 paragraph one, Section 914 and Section 989 paragraph one and paragraph 224.

Supreme Court in 8296/2551.
The defendant a check made payable to bearer shall be transferred only by delivery to under Section 918, 989 plaintiffs in the transferee as the holder and a holder under the Civil and Commercial Code Section 904 has sued both the defendant liable under check. Both defendants were sued in debt by the bills are not fighting out who is the plaintiff with a defense that relies on personal relations between the province, the former except that the transfer will take place with terrorism cooperation is fraudulent as defined in Section 916 Section 989 of the testimony of the defendant and the defendant only as a check made payable to the province with no debt. It is guaranteed to play shared between them. Notice of such a nature that the relationship between the defendant a check made payable to the province, which is full of people before. Therefore, the defendant will raise such a relationship is a defense to the plaintiff, who checks that the check does not have the same debt. Prohibited under these provisions.

The two defendants did not provide expressly that the transfer of check fraud and how terrorism cooperation. And initially assume that the plaintiff was in good faith in accordance with Section 5 of the Province, the plaintiff sued the defendants in both cases it is not a defense that the defendant will raise both the lean the plaintiff under Section 904 and Section 916 and Section 989 provides that a defendant either. Plaintiff exercised in bad faith, it is clear that the plaintiff does not describe how bad faith. The two are not favored by the defendant P.wi.p. Section 177 paragraph two shall not give rise to disputes and litigation matters. The defendant, a sign the checks defendant 1 should be liable for the contents of the check in accordance with Section 900 on the bank refused to cash the check the defendant is a liable for the check to the plaintiff under Section 914 of the 989 which The defendant received a share of the province, it's not just the province directly to the admonition that a defendant is not involved in the case of an endorsement on the fact that the second hearing that the defendant is a signatory. check payable to the defendant liable under the text in the two bills as a sign of endorsement in order to use the money to shareholders, it would sweep away their responsibility to do. The defendant's position as a guarantee or aval for the second payer. When the bank refused to cash the check, the second defendant to be bound by the same defendant in a Section 989 and Section 921 940.

Supreme Court in 5778/2550.
Check both the parties to pay a plaintiff or holder. It is in the holder. When the plaintiff is the holder in case both the plaintiff and in disputes between the two. To collect the money from the bank. But the bank refused to pay. The plaintiff, who is in conflict both with the law. Despite the fact that the plaintiff endorsed the check to the bank to dispute the matter, but when I go back in case both in terms of the plaintiff's possession. As the payee. It was a dispute, the plaintiff in both the two lawfully. One under Section 904.
Defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant has no legal relationship between any of the defendants never purchased any goods from the plaintiff the defendant was ordered by the Court to issue two checks payable to the plaintiff and texture. Hand, a payer is not the signature of the defendant. The defendant shall not be liable to the plaintiff if the court that the plaintiff and the defendant is dealing with a real diamond. The transaction is not more than three million baht, like the defendant will be liable only for some three million baht, a diamond was returned to the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant shall not be liable to the full amount of the check to see that the testimony of the defendant. First, the defendant denied that any product not purchased from the plaintiff and not paid out for both parties to the plaintiff to pay the debt. The defendant denies that it owes the plaintiff purchased the product. But back to the defendant that the defendant returned to the plaintiff and some diamonds. If that debt is not more than three million baht, the defendant shall not be liable in full by both parties. Which the defendant accepted that. The defendant purchased the diamond from the plaintiff and ordered to pay in case both the plaintiff, the only defendant liable to pay the check dispute and the only three million baht, according to the number of products purchased from the plaintiff because such a notice. The defendant said that the conflict is obvious. It is not clear as to P.wi.p. Section 177 paragraph two and the defendant are issues that will attest to that as well.

Supreme Court in 5831/2550.
Even in the consignment note the signature of the carrier at the bottom right corner is a VIRGO LINE by LEO TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. AS AGENT FOR THE CARRIER, which translates to the plaintiff, on behalf of the VIRGO LINE carrier, but delivery is only evidence. of the contract of carriage by sea. Not a contract of carriage by sea. And the contract of carriage by sea is not full. The plaintiff was able to witness the result that the plaintiff amend this document of carriage. Marine by the name of the operation of the VIRGO LINE, the trade name or trademark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff used the name in the consignment note to the sender of the facts, listen to that. The plaintiff is the defendant's goods 1 and 2, the Marine is entitled to freight and transportation costs from the defendants 1 and 2.
The third co-defendant, the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 trading business for the purposes of a co-defendant employed the plaintiff as a sales and contact the carrier to pay shipping. And the various operations. And the payment of freight costs to transport by paying by check delivered to the plaintiff when the defendant's third signing is payable in the sixth to be held liable by the body in check and also be liable. As the sender with the 1st and 2nd defendants, the plaintiff hired the defendant attest marine cargo with

Supreme Court in 1169/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, the three joint liability in the dispute by the defendant, 2 and 3, sign the order and the seal of the defendant at one of Appeal Region 5 and the fact the record indicates that the check portion is not. can Charged the defendants 2 and 3, to accept responsibility for damages against the person who holds out as a private judge, the defendant, 2 and 3, with liability in case the defendant to one of the plaintiff and the judge the facts in the indictment did not. with the problem. Civil Procedure Code Section 142.

Supreme Court in 3329/2550.
Defendant ordered to pay out 3 to deliver to the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not bring to the charge. Which the defendant is ordered to pay out 3 to pay the plaintiff or as a security for payment by money transfer. Plaintiff's account in a foreign country. Defendants are liable under the body in check in order to use the money to the plaintiff, who in the first paragraph of Section 900, 914, 989, paragraph one, but payment by check, a bill Debt settlement will end when the bills are paid according to Section 321 paragraph three, when the plaintiff did not bring to the charge three checks from the bank the check. The existing debt stock was suspended. The plaintiff, a creditor would be negligent not to check their own bill, however, for a total payment of $ 1219 when the last time you were paid by the defendant after the defendant backed out of the money paid to a function representing the plaintiff. and function to the defendant to pay the hotel bill totaling Baht 99,177.05 received by the defendants for payment of any debt repayment rather than to the plaintiff under Section 321 to the first paragraph.

Supreme Court in 3100/2550.
The defendant signed a check payable to the dispute. Body check is liable under Section 900 of the first paragraph of the defendants denied liability. The burden of proof falls upon the defendant.
Serve as proof that the defendant will serve as proof the notice. Forbidden to listen to the Civil Procedure Code Section 87 (1) The Court of Appeal Region 1 will serve as proof of the defendant and the judge said he was not listening. Supreme Court has not been diagnosed.
The defendants dispute the debt issue to repay the money borrowed to Thor. It is listed in the defendants who agreed to check on them as you see. Appropriate to charge the defendant to pay the check from the Thor dated checks payable to the dispute is regarded as Thor, who checks by law to act in good faith. Note payable to the actual day to check under Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one shall be the date for payment of checks by the defendant to be dishonest not to fight.
Defendants dispute the debt in order to be liable for Thor Thor, the former owner before the transfer to the plaintiff in the dispute. The check is a check payable to the disputed money to the shareholders. Check the transfer case only by delivering to each other. The plaintiff, who is in dispute with it. The defendant, who paid out no matter who I fight with Thor before it is used as a defense, the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff, and Thor, the former debt obligations in the transference was not in dispute. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff in the dispute in accordance with Section 900 paragraph, 914, 918, 989, paragraph one.

Supreme Court in 8331/2549.
The first defendant to sign a check payable to the defendant at the second sign, which is endorsed by the first paragraph of Section 900 and Section 989 states that persons who sign their checks would be liable under the body in check. When all the defendant's contention that the payment by check and the defendant's second assignment of lease of two commercial units will hit the debt to the plaintiff. The fact that the claims will not be liable for the check. Page attest to the fact that they fall into the two defendants. Attest to the plaintiff that the defendant's second assignment of lease obligations under a commercial hit in the other. It claims only serve as proof that the defendant raised two arguments in the only previous issues, this can attest to the plaintiff did not fall.
The two defendants are responsible for attest I attest that the defendants can not be both payable by check to the plaintiff, then the claims in dispute does not settle the debt by the end of it. Both defendants are liable to the plaintiff by the body in check.
The plaintiff claimed that the document is a copy of the check in front of it. The plaintiff claimed that the original check has been returned to the defendant. Both the defendant objected only that the document is a copy. No objection to that. Original or fake documents or copies not required by Section 125 of P.wi.p. not advised the court that Check the original defendant, both real or not. It held that the plaintiff can not be picked up by any other source P.wi.p. Section 93 (2) a check from the court to hear the testimony of the plaintiff.

Supreme Court in 5799/2549.
L. purchased fuel from the defendant and the plaintiff's company, HMS Director. Check all four of the dispute, despite the checks issued to buyers. But a check of the defendant and L. together to fuel the company's payment obligations to the plaintiff, not Rama is Rama is a private company who is in dispute. Although the plaintiff, is authorized to participate as a private company, R. plaintiff was not in a position who is in dispute. It is not written to the complainant to prosecute the defendant was competent prosecutor, the plaintiff sued the defendant, the court has no power now.

Supreme Court in 7544/2548.
The four defendants liable under the law in accordance with Section 900 of the defendant's share of set-off payment for principal and interest on loans based on checks that the defendant intends to dispute the debt and the share that the plaintiff claims to be. defendant's debt was offset against the amount of 800,000 baht in debt disputes in court. Attest to the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that defendants had agreed among themselves by the amount of debt. The plaintiff must pay a share of the 1.2 million USD loan to the debt the defendant owed the plaintiff. When the plaintiff returned the check for the amount of debt to net debt to the defendant and the defendant. Share the responsibility to pay the plaintiff. After deduction of the debt it owed the defendant to the plaintiff the amount of debt which the defendant was ordered to pay 759,040 in the fourth edition of the debt against the plaintiff's share to be paid to the defendant to stop it. With netting. The plaintiff has no obligation to pay the defendant's. Held that the defendant claims that the netting is still fighting in the Section 344 stipulates that "any claim to have fought. You claim that I could not netting out "the defendant is entitled to claim a share that is paid to the plaintiff for the netting. Plaintiff does not dispute the check.

Supreme Court in 6305/2548.
In case the defendant an order has been defaced, the word "or bearer" and then write the word "fresh" to the space after the word "pay" would result in the dispute, no name or brand of the recipient. money Or notification that the payment to holders of the Section 988 (4) states and the cross was not the case under Section 899, which is writing the text. Civil and Commercial Code shall be provided in the bill. Words to the effect of the bill. Check the list of disputes which have legal force. Have resulted in disputes not check under Section 987 and Section 910, paragraph one of Article 989, paragraph one, even by banks in refusing to pay the defendant a payer and the defendant 2 The endorsement is not liable under the body in Check it.

Supreme Court in 2784/2548.
The defendant testified that plaintiff and the defendant has no legal relationship to each other. Defendant ordered to pay out settlement to help. To secure help. And the plaintiff made a fraudulent defendant by the plaintiff to bring out the dispute to date and the bill is to ensure that does not show explicitly that the plaintiff terrorism cooperation with Beach. fraud defendants, however. There are no issues of transfer with terrorism cooperation and cheating under Section 916 will attest, when in dispute is the instrument that is transferable to the beach. Who shall have the right to check the dispute to the plaintiff by the defendant for not having a legal relationship with the defendant, either in battle order. paid to shareholders. Initially, the plaintiff must be transferred to a bona fide dispute in accordance with Section 5 the plaintiff shall have the right to take a day out in accordance with the actual settlement check into that. Defendant has not paid into the Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph order the defendant to pay money to check out the dispute is liable to the plaintiff under Section 914.

Supreme Court in 4714/2547.
Section 899 stipulates that "any text which is not provided for in this Code. Is written into the bill. You will find that the text of the bill as one that "the general provisions apply to the total bill. Promissory notes and checks of Section 915 stipulates that "those who paid the bill and endorse anyone any good to write down the definition, which says the following to the manifest, that it is (a) the provisions negate or limit the liability of themselves to the Lord. bills, "which is a provision in the bill is not provided for in the General Provisions. As with Section 899 and Section 985, the provisions of the Promissory Notes Act, Section 915 does not apply to promissory notes. Thus, the three defendants have endorsed bills that No recourse to endorse the text is contrary to Section 983 (2) The promissory note shall be in accordance with Section 899 of the third defendant was not liable under the promissory notes.

Supreme Court in 2940/2547.
A dispute over a crossed check payable to the company for it. Not in the holder. Therefore, and. The Lord. Only to sales contracts and endorsements to check for dispute to the plaintiff. The fact that reduction in the sales contract is made after the company Mon 3 °. Unregistered and registered the company completed the liquidation of Section 1270, paragraph two of the company and. The end. tax to the state. The check from the sales contract is unenforceable under the laws of both the Bank and Sun endorsing signature and company seal it. In that case the plaintiff was a check without endorsing the transfer of power. I shall not do so in accordance with Section 1008 plaintiff received a settlement check was endorsed by the broken line. Plaintiffs who are not lawfully in accordance with Section 904, 905, all three defendants as the payer will not be liable to the plaintiff.

Supreme Court in 4768/2543.
The first defendant to the defendant, but only 2 with the plaintiff acted in bad faith with the second defendant had transferred the check to both parties and another to the plaintiff by the terrorism cooperation and cheating. The two defendants did not owe the plaintiff. Plaintiff who is not lawfully Such words are just words, to deny that there is no denying that terrorism cooperation between the profile of fraud, however, that a defendant may present witnesses who can not be traced by the battle. However, notice that the two defendants did not owe the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who was not like The defendant, a fight that the right of the plaintiff that the check was not complete. Which the plaintiff has no right to demand payment as a check against the owner because they do not. Debt because a defendant will claim and attest that they raise as a defense to the plaintiff. Most people today. Not a defense that a defendant has a previous owner that would be contrary to Section 916.

Supreme Court in 3509/2542.
The defendant testified that the defendant money. By check to the marshland to venture into trading by the defendant as the venture capital money. And agree to cancel the loan. Check the debt extinguished. The defendant appealed and the court said. The defendant issued a check in any time. Check does not check the bill and taken into account, it is not raised like that, then by the lower court. Check a negotiable instrument to be reliable during Payer and who he was. When the check to the billing. Will be paid by check. Any provisions which prohibit or restrict the payment will be made, therefore, must be met. Provisions of the law, the defendant is a black line on the day. Such action does not authorize the provisions of the law that made such statements as a result we find one. To check that under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 899 is considered the defendant dated check by check when the plaintiff did not receive a check and take it into account. Plaintiff or the bank. Date in accordance with Section 910 and Section 898 paragraph endorsing the checks signed by the plaintiff shareholders. Must be considered. Guarantee or aval payer under Section 921 and Section 989 of the Aval Aval not by operation of law under section 939 does not have to write it says. The aval is liable to the plaintiff under section 940 b. shall be liable to pay the bills payable for the Products by the plaintiff or the defendant must be aware of and assume obligations. The rape receivables.

Supreme Court in 3509/2542.
Check a negotiable instrument that requires trust between the payer and who will check that when the bill will be paid by check. Therefore, any provisions which prohibit or restrict the payment will be. Must be in accordance with the provisions of the law. Check out the dispute by the defendant in the black lines on it. When there is no provision of law authorizing that action. Such statements should not be one to check that under the Code. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 899 of the defendant dated check does not check it. When the plaintiff is in dispute and taken into account. Plaintiff or bank checks are dated in the paragraph under Section 910 and Section 989 B. The defendant issued a check payable to the payee. But does not cross out the words "or bearer" to the defendant claims that would check the name. But with a well-proportioned of the defendant does not cross out the words "or bearer" are not in dispute, it must be regarded as a check holder. Plaintiff's signature endorsing the check, the check holder disputes. Have the effect of insurance. Or aval payer. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 921 and Section 989, an aval by operation of law. Not Aval Section 939 does not have to write. Says. Also available is aval.

Supreme Court in 1084/2542.
Check payable to the defendant disputes the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff, who is in dispute. The check is due. The plaintiff is imported. Plaintiff's account to charge the mother and the bank refuses to pay, it is only to check billing. Instead of relying on the mother's account only. When the plaintiff fails to deliver or transfer any dispute arising out of the mother, but the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who is still in dispute at the time the bank refuses to pay and The victim has the power to prosecute them. The plaintiff is. He checks the dispute. To check the bill at the bank when the bank refuses to pay the check. Check if the plaintiff is injured. To check whether the plaintiff's account to the plaintiff's bill or anyone else's account to charge for it. Just check the details in the account to collect money. Such differences are not differences in the material is. Because the court to dismiss it.

Supreme Court to 250/2541.
Check is a check issued to the holder of the dispute over who was entitled to transfer to a third party and shall be transferable by delivery. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 918 and Section 989 on the plaintiff, as assignee in case of delivery. It is the plaintiff in possession of a check in the payee, the plaintiff is in dispute. By the Court under Section 904 and the second defendant's liability to pay the check payable to dispute it. Check out the dispute is not present in the defendant. 2 is a state that can act on behalf of the defendant, one of which is an entity of Company, the defendant No. 2 was not a member of the defendant to one another, despite the defendant's second sealed the defendant a check dispute, however, accused the two without power. The defendant made the case that a defendant is not bound as a corporate entity. And is not that the defendant first be paid in settlement, so when the accused 2 is the signature on the check case without a statement that the actions of the defendant, a defendant No. 2 shall be liable under the body in check disputes under the Civil. and Commercial Section 900, paragraph one of Article 901.

Supreme Court in 7121/2539.
Defendant No. 1 and No. 2 is authorized checks payable to the Company. Signed check made payable to the plaintiff's case, the debt service. The company and the first defendant but the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 without the seal of the company. It's not that the defendants 1 and 2, did not sign the checks, stating that These companies act on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 must share the liability. Check the text that appears in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 900 901.

Supreme Court in 5998/2537.
Defendant 1 is authorized to act on behalf of the Tor or less. Together with other members, one of the accused at a sign and seal two of the three defendants as a result of the defendant that the defendant 3. The directors of the defendant. Signed a check payable without specifying clearly how to act for another person. So I did not order the defendant to three signed checks as an agent of the defendant that a third defendant would be liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 901 compliance checks.

Supreme Court in 4991/2536.
When it is known that the plaintiff by the defendant disputed issue between the debt must take into account. The transfer of the person who sent it in good faith or not. The defendant can not raise the defense that the check is no debt to the fight, the man had been in dispute, as in our case 2 and case 2, the company accused the first to sign the order and stamp seals. The importance of a defendant who has not registered for use. Therefore not bound by a defendant that the defendant did not hold that an order is signed. But the settlement check signed by several persons. A person may not be a party to the bill that it is possible, but not the full result would not have wound up the liability of others out there who would be liable under the bills under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 902, so the defendant No. 2 was. remain liable under check. Both the defendant and the defendant, the two signed a check payable to the dispute, but that is not liable under check. Even the stamp duty will not be in dispute. The fact that the defendant received. 2 checks payable to the dispute.

Supreme Court in 5250/2533.
Check the phone has been an exhaustive list. Despite the recorded message on the back of the check and was defaced before the plaintiff received. Such statements would not affect checks. And held that the plaintiff was not checked by the fraud or gross negligence. Plaintiff is a bank check from the customer to pay the normal trade. I must have checked the source or payer as a check. It's not that the plaintiff had fraudulently terrorism cooperation with our customers. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff as a full body check by law.

Supreme Court in 5035/2528.
Current deposit agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that Payments shall be payable by April. And together with the province. The plaintiff is the company's seal. Check both the parties. And signature. As the counterfeit check and then hand it is invalidated. It's only May. Shall be the sole defendant to pay the check. Such checks would not make it out to be wrong. Current account deposits, such that f. Signed the check is not a plaintiff in the base. The need to cut to make up a fake sign up as a defense when they do not have to. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1006 of the defendant to pay the check. The plaintiff, who paid fake signature. Serve as proof that the defendant did not prove that. The plaintiff has made a false or fraudulent actions have been. The defendant is not entitled to the amount of the check was paid to current accounts receivable to the defendant and the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the defendant has the right to withdraw the item is defective.
The plaintiff sued the defendant's breach of contract, deposit and current accounts. Defendant that the defendant pay the money back to the plaintiff in the payer's signature. Forged signatures. Then put that amount into a savings account or current account. The plaintiff is the debtor. If no such law otherwise. Age was a period of ten years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164 in December 2518 and informed the plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Last month, in May 2525 did not terminate the plaintiff's case.

Supreme Court in 422/2521.
He notes that would pay for a ticket to that cause. Aval released from liability. The aval is bound to be the same person whom they insure. As the initial loans as the ticket. And not as a guarantor under the general rules on the guarantee.
Aval check payable to the holder of a debt repayment of promissory notes. Money to get the debt under the promissory note. And would cause a break down of a minimalistic design.

Read More