Supreme Court Decisions
Marriage Law – Dowry and Engagement Gifts Decisions
An Engagement Agreement Is More Than Just a “Formality” — It Is Legally Binding
Supreme Court Judgment No. 763/2526
Summary of the Judgment:
Many people understand an engagement as merely a ceremonial step before marriage. Under Thai law, however, an engagement constitutes a legally binding contract. If either party breaches the engagement agreement, the other party may have the right to bring a legal action to recover the engagement gift and claim compensation. Supreme Court Judgment No. 763/2526 is a clear example confirming the legal rights arising from an engagement agreement.
Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff, who was the man, became engaged to a woman identified as N., with the three defendants representing the woman’s side. Dowry was delivered in accordance with the parties’ agreement in contemplation of the marriage. When the marriage did not take place, the plaintiff alleged that the woman’s side had breached the engagement agreement and therefore brought an action seeking the return of the Dowry.The Supreme Court held that an engagement constitutes a contract under Section 1435 of the Civil and Commercial Code, while Dowry is property given in consideration of the woman agreeing to marry under Section 1437. Accordingly, where the woman breaches the engagement agreement, the man, as a party to the contract, is entitled to recover the Dowry.Although Section 1439 addresses persons entitled to claim compensation for a breach of an engagement agreement without limiting such rights exclusively to the engaged couple themselves, the plaintiff in this case was himself a party to the engagement agreement. He was therefore legally entitled to bring the action against all three defendants.
Can a Man Recover “Dowry” If the Marriage Was Never Registered?
Supreme Court Judgment No. 878/2518
Summary of the Judgment:
Many people mistakenly believe that if a marriage is not officially registered, the man is always entitled to recover the Dowry. However, Supreme Court Judgment No. 878/2518 established an important principle: the absence of marriage registration does not necessarily mean that the woman alone was in breach of the agreement. If the failure to register the marriage was not solely attributable to the woman, the man is not entitled to recover the Dowry.
Interesting Article
In this case, the defendant, who was the father of the man, arranged the engagement with the plaintiff, the woman, on behalf of his son. He agreed to pay a sum of money as Dowry on the wedding day, but requested that payment be deferred. After the wedding ceremony, the defendant executed a loan agreement in place of the Dowry payment, naming the plaintiff as the lender
Can a Land Sale Agreement Constitute “Dowry”?
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1901/2559
Summary of the Judgment:
In engagement or marriage proposal traditions, the man’s side may sometimes present property or a document expressing an intention to transfer property, such as a land sale agreement, in place of an engagement gift or Dowry. The question, however, is whether such a contractual document can legally constitute Dowry. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1901/2559 provides a clear answer to this issue, which directly affects property claims between the two families.
Interesting Article
In this case, the first defendant formally approached the plaintiff to ask for the plaintiff’s daughter’s hand in marriage. During the ceremony, the defendant placed a land sale and purchase agreement, which he had arranged himself, on a ceremonial tray and presented it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s daughter was named as the prospective purchaser in the agreement, indicating an intention to give the land as Dowry.However, it later became clear that ownership of the land was never actually transferred under the agreement. The Supreme Court therefore held that the land did not constitute Dowry under Section 1437, paragraph three, because it was not property that had actually been given to the woman’s side in consideration of her agreement to marry.This judgment therefore makes clear that, for property to qualify as Dowry under the law, there must be an actual transfer of the property. A mere expression of intention to give the property, or the execution of a contract without an actual transfer, is insufficient.