Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the first defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff for business purposes. The second defendant and the Small and Medium Enterprise Credit Guarantee Corporation jointly guaranteed the debt.When the first defendant defaulted, the plaintiff received only partial payment from the Corporation and then released it from further liability. The plaintiff nevertheless brought an action against the first and second defendants for the remaining balance.The Supreme Court held that, under Book II, Chapter 5 of the Civil and Commercial Code, partial payment of a debt or the release of one guarantor does not, by itself, extinguish the entire obligation. As long as part of the debt remains unpaid, the principal debtor continues to be liable for the outstanding amount.The Court further held that another guarantor who guarantees the same debt remains liable as a joint debtor under Section 682, paragraph two, even if the guarantees were not executed at the same time.Accordingly, the release of one guarantor did not release the remaining guarantor or the principal debtor from liability for the unpaid balance. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the lower courts’ judgments ordering the first and second defendants to pay the remaining debt of THB 169,361.21 together with interest.This judgment confirms that releasing one guarantor after receiving only partial payment does not extinguish the entire debt. The principal debtor and the remaining co-guarantor continue to be liable until the debt has been fully discharged or otherwise terminated in accordance with law.

Interesting Article
In this case, the first defendant pledged paddy rice and milled rice as security for a debt. The parties entered into both a pledge agreement and a warehouse lease agreement under which the first defendant’s warehouse was used to store the pledged goods. Although the defendant could enter and leave the warehouse, the pledge agreement expressly provided that the defendant had no right to use or move the pledged property unless prior written consent was obtained from the plaintiff.The Supreme Court held that the pledgor’s duty was to preserve the pledged property for the benefit of the pledgee, not for the pledgor’s own benefit. Even though the goods were physically stored on premises belonging to the pledgor, the defendant could not freely use or remove them.Accordingly, the pledged property remained under the possession and control of the creditor, and the pledge had not been extinguished under Section 769 (2) of the Civil and Commercial Code.This judgment confirms that the pledgor’s obligations extend beyond merely keeping the property safe. The pledgor must also comply strictly with the contractual restrictions governing possession, use, and movement of the pledged property. Physical access alone does not cause the pledge to terminate where legal control remains with the pledgee.

Contracts and debt
Guarantees and suretyship
Breach of contract / Contract interpretation
Unjust enrichment / Restitution
Force majeure and impossibility of performance