11/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 81 (No. 8023) 2006
Public Prosecutor of Pranakorn Sri Ayuthaya vs. Mr. Direk Thongkam

Re: Obscene Acts, Criminal Proceedings

The prosecutor's charge for criminal proceedings against the accused is that the accused separated and forcibly separated the first aggrieved party, a minor aged 15 years, but not over 18 years, from her mother, the second aggrieved party, through deception. The prosecutor's charge was incomplete as it did not cover obscene and immoral actions committed by the accused, based on the first paragraph of Section 284 of the Criminal Code. Even though the prosecutor added the request for criminal proceedings under the section at a later stage of the proceedings, and the court heard claims of obscene actions committed by the accused against the aggrieved, the court cannot punish the accused based on the first paragraph, Section 284 of the Criminal Code because the prosecutor did not include the section in the statement of claims according to the first paragraph of Section 192 Criminal Procedure Code. Yet the court has decided to judge the case on independent terms based on the fact that the issue at hand involves law and public order.

11/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 102 (No. 8390) 2006
Miss Napit Injan vs. Sabkeaw Co., Ltd

Re: Condominium Transfer of Ownership

The plaintiff (buyer) agreed to purchase a condominium unit, owned by the defendant (seller), and began making payments for purchase of the unit prior to its construction. Once the disputed condominium unit was built, the plaintiff inspected the place and found cracks in the concrete wall which the defendant agreed to repair.

The defendant claimed a letter was sent to the plaintiff in September 1996, informing the plaintiff to transfer ownership of the condominium unit within 15 days from receipt of the letter or else the agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant for purchase of the unit would be terminated. The plaintiff did not make the transfer of ownership within the specified time as stated in the letter, yet the defendant made another appointment to transfer ownership of the condominium unit at a later date, and permitted the plaintiff to inspect the cracks in the wall of the disputed unit. The court finds that, although the defendant's letter stated that the agreement would be terminated if the transfer of ownership was not made in the specified period, the agreement was not invalidated in this instance as the defendant's actions were indicative of the defendant's intentions to sell the condominium unit. Subsequent to September 1996, the defendant made an appointment with the plaintiff for transfer of ownership on 26 December 1996. The plaintiff did not make transfer of ownership on the date because the defendant requested payment of a late fee amounting to 50,000 Baht, claiming that the defendant did not make transfer of ownership within the specified period as stated in the letter of September 1996. No further appointment has been made for transfer of ownership.

As the contract is in effect and the defendant has not made transfer of ownership of the condominium unit into the plaintiff's name, the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the agreement with the defendant.