Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the first defendant defaulted on the vehicle installments beginning with the 14th installment. The plaintiff therefore sent a written demand requiring payment within 30 days and stating that, if payment was not made, the agreement would be terminated.Although the first defendant did not collect the notice, the hire-purchase agreement expressly provided that notice sent by registered mail would be deemed properly given.The first defendant subsequently returned the vehicle without objection before the 30-day period had expired. The Court held that this conduct demonstrated an intention not to continue performing the agreement and amounted to consent to its termination.The first defendant was therefore regarded as being in breach of contract and was liable for a deficiency of THB 72,000 arising from the resale of the vehicle. Although the defendant argued that the resale price was too low, no evidence was produced to establish that the price obtained was unreasonable.This judgment confirms that refusing or failing to collect a written notice does not necessarily prevent termination where the agreement validly specifies the method of notice. A hirer who remains in default and returns the vehicle may still be liable for the resulting shortfall under the hire-purchase agreement.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 4937/2566, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the first defendant to purchase materials and equipment obtained from the dismantling of a factory. The plaintiff fully paid the first installment and made only a partial payment of the second installment. The plaintiff later attempted to terminate the agreement, claiming that the goods were incomplete. The Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff had failed to make full payment in accordance with the contractual terms, the plaintiff was itself in breach of contract. It therefore could not validly exercise a right to terminate the agreement under Section 386 of the Civil and Commercial Code.The plaintiff’s purported termination was consequently ineffective, and the plaintiff had no right to recover the deposit or claim damages from the defendant on that basis.The Court further held that the first defendant’s counterclaim was a separate matter that still required consideration. However, because the defendant failed to prove the amount allegedly advanced or paid on the plaintiff’s behalf, the defendant was not entitled to recover that amount from the plaintiff.This judgment confirms that a party already in breach of its contractual obligations cannot rely on its own breach as a basis for terminating the agreement and claiming restitution or damages. At the same time, dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim does not automatically dispose of a properly raised counterclaim, which must be determined on its own facts and supporting evidence.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 4836/2567, the first defendant defaulted on the hire-purchase installments beginning with the first payment. Although the agreement did not expressly give the hirer a right to terminate, the first defendant returned the vehicle to the plaintiff without objection and thereby clearly demonstrated an intention to end the contractual relationship.The Supreme Court held that this voluntary return constituted a valid termination of the hire-purchase agreement under Section 573 of the Civil and Commercial Code.Once the agreement had been terminated, the plaintiff was entitled to claim the contractual deficiency arising from the resale of the vehicle. However, where the amount claimed operates as a penalty and is disproportionately high, the Court has authority to reduce it to a reasonable amount under Section 383, paragraph one.In this case, the Supreme Court ordered the first defendant to pay THB 106,000 as the deficiency, together with THB 21,000 for loss of use, for a total of THB 127,000, plus interest at the statutory rate.The second defendant was not liable for the deficiency because the required notice had not been given within 60 days.This judgment confirms that termination of a hire-purchase agreement does not always require an express mutual agreement. A hirer’s voluntary return of the property, accompanied by conduct clearly showing an intention not to continue the agreement, may itself constitute valid termination.

Interesting Article
In this case, the second defendant, a celebrity, was engaged by the plaintiff as a Brand Ambassador for watches and jewelry sold under the “Ch.” brand. The agreement prohibited the defendant from advertising or promoting products of the plaintiff’s commercial competitors.
The defendant later posted a photograph on a personal Instagram account showing the defendant wearing jewelry from the “K.” brand together with hashtags referring to that brand.The Supreme Court held that, although the agreement did not specifically identify competing companies by name, the “K.” and “Ch.” products were of the same general type and could serve as substitutes for one another. The brands were therefore regarded as commercial competitors, and the Instagram post constituted a breach of the Brand Ambassador agreement.The Court also addressed the contractual damages clause. It held that the stipulated amount constituted a penalty, and where such a penalty is disproportionately high, the Court has authority to reduce it to a reasonable amount under Section 383 of the Civil and Commercial Code.Following termination of the agreement, the defendant was entitled to remuneration only to the extent of the value of the work actually performed, in accordance with Section 391 of the Civil and Commercial Code.This judgment confirms that restrictions in endorsement and Brand Ambassador agreements may extend to conduct on personal social media accounts where the content promotes or gives exposure to a competing product. Whether another brand is a “commercial competitor” depends on the nature of the products and their ability to compete or substitute for one another, rather than solely on whether the contract expressly names the competing company.

Interesting Article
In this case, the second defendant, a celebrity, was engaged by the plaintiff as a Brand Ambassador for watches and jewelry sold under the “Ch.” brand. The agreement prohibited the defendant from advertising or promoting products belonging to the plaintiff’s commercial competitors.
The defendant later posted a photograph on a personal Instagram account showing the defendant wearing jewelry from the “K.” brand, together with hashtags referring to that brand.The Supreme Court held that, although the agreement did not specifically identify competing companies by name, the “K.” and “Ch.” products were of the same general category and could serve as substitutes for one another. The two brands were therefore regarded as commercial competitors, and the Instagram post constituted a breach of the Brand Ambassador agreement.The Court also considered the contractual damages clause and held that the stipulated amount constituted a penalty. Where such a penalty is disproportionately high, the Court has authority to reduce it to a reasonable amount under Section 383 of the Civil and Commercial Code.Following termination of the agreement, the defendant was entitled to remuneration only to the extent of the value of the work actually performed, in accordance with Section 391 of the Civil and Commercial Code.This judgment confirms that restrictions in endorsement and Brand Ambassador agreements may extend to conduct on personal social media accounts where the content promotes or gives exposure to a competing product. Whether another brand qualifies as a commercial competitor depends on the nature of the products and whether they compete with or may be substituted for one another, rather than solely on whether the competing company is expressly named in the contract.