4/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 22 (No. 1094) 2006
Chantana Wangladda vs. Sricharoen Property Construction Co. Ltd.

Re: Contracts; Sufficient Grounds for Termination

One party not acting in accordance with the contract is a ground for another party to cancel the contract.  However the violation must be of great enough significance.  The plaintiff and first defendant are disputing over whether the construction of a wall in front of a building is central property and whether the completion of construction also means completion of construction of central property.  In this case the incomplete central the Thailand community property is only a construction that would provide the user with additional comfort.  In a letter canceling the contract the plaintiff specified only that the first defendant had not completed construction and therefore was not able to transfer the property to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff did not specify the wall in front of the building in the letter as the reason demonstrating that the plaintiff was not significantly concerned about this wall.  The defendant's incompletion of the construction of the wall does not give the plaintiff the right to cancel the contract with the defendant.

4/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 74 (No. 2761) 2006
Songpol Tangsuwan vs. Non Tabtan

Re: Agency; Undisclosed Principle

The first plaintiff is an employee authorized to act on behalf of the second plaintiff.  The first plaintiff received the defendant's the Thailand real estate as collateral on a mortgage loan that the defendant procured from the second plaintiff.  The receipt of the land was the action of the second plaintiff although in the mortgage contract it specified that the first plaintiff was the recipient of the land.  The contract did not specify representatives of the second plaintiff and in this case the second plaintiff did not disclose that the first plaintiff was authorized to receive the mortgage as the second plaintiff's representative.  The second plaintiff has the right to act in this regard according to Section 806 of the Civil and Commercial Code. This case does not fall under Paragraph 1 of Section 798 of the Civil and Commercial Code which specifies that agents for mortgage contracts must be specified in a document.  Accordingly the second agent's appointment of an agent without creating a document for entering into a mortgage contract with the defendant is the right to have an undisclosed agent according to the Section 806 of the Civil and Commercial Code.  The second plaintiff is authorized to enforce the mortgage agreement.