Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff, who was the elder brother of the defendant’s husband, transferred more than THB 285,000 to the defendant and the defendant’s mother. The purpose was for the defendant to lend the money to third parties, charge interest exceeding the lawful rate, and return the resulting profits to the plaintiff.Messages exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant through Messenger showed that the plaintiff was directly aware of and involved in the unlawful lending arrangement.The defendant did not deny receiving the money but argued that it was not a personal loan made to her. When the plaintiff later sued to recover the funds, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had knowingly provided the money for lending activities that violated the statutory interest-rate limit of 15 percent per year.The Court held that such conduct was contrary to law and good morals within the meaning of Section 411 of the Civil and Commercial Code. A person who transfers money for such an unlawful purpose cannot later demand its return on the basis of unjust enrichment.The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal Region 9 requiring the defendant to repay only THB 5,000, which the lower courts found to constitute a genuine debt. The plaintiff had no right to recover the remainder of the money transferred for the unlawful lending arrangement.

Interesting Article
In this case, a government entity entered into a contract to purchase land from the defendant. An attachment to the sale agreement provided that, if a later survey showed that the land area was less than stated, the defendant agreed to refund the purchase price in proportion to the deficiency. A subsequent survey revealed that the land was short by 2 ngan and 6.8 square wah, representing a value of more than THB 2 million. The plaintiff therefore brought an action seeking repayment of that amount together with interest.The defendant argued that the claim was time-barred because it was a claim based on unjust enrichment under Section 419 of the Civil and Commercial Code and was therefore subject to a one-year limitation period.The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It held that the contractual attachment formed part of the sale agreement. The defendant’s failure to refund the agreed amount therefore constituted a breach of the sale contract.Because the plaintiff was enforcing a contractual obligation and no specific limitation period applied to that particular claim, the general ten-year limitation period under Section 193/30 of the Civil and Commercial Code applied.The claim was therefore not one arising from enrichment without legal basis. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and rejected the defendant’s appeal.This judgment confirms that where the parties have expressly agreed in a contract on the consequences of a deficiency in the land area, a claim arising from non-compliance with that agreement must be treated as a contractual claim rather than a claim in unjust enrichment.

Interesting Article
In this case, the defendant appointed the plaintiff as broker to sell five parcels of land and agreed to pay a commission of 3 percent if the property was sold for not less than THB 10 million.The plaintiff later arranged for the land to be filled in order to increase its value and make it more attractive to potential buyers. The plaintiff informed the defendant of the work, and the defendant did not object. The defendant subsequently terminated the brokerage arrangement and sold the land to another person.The plaintiff brought an action claiming the brokerage commission, the cost of filling the land, and other special damages.In The Supreme Court held that the award of brokerage commission made by the Court of Appeal exceeded the relief sought by the plaintiff and was therefore contrary to Section 142 of the Civil Procedure Code. That part of the claim could not be upheld.As to the land-filling expenses, however, the Court found that the fill had become permanently incorporated into the land and had increased its value. The defendant, as landowner, therefore received the benefit of the improvement without having paid for it.Although the brokerage agreement contained no express provision requiring reimbursement of the land-filling expenses, the plaintiff had undertaken the work for the purpose of improving the defendant’s land, had informed the defendant, and had received no objection. The defendant later retained the benefit of the completed improvement.Because the fill had permanently become part of the land and could not physically be returned, the defendant was regarded as having obtained a benefit without legal basis within the meaning of Section 406 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Under Section 412, paragraph one, the defendant was therefore required to reimburse the value of the benefit received.The Supreme Court ordered the defendant to pay THB 125,000 for the land-filling expenses together with interest, while dismissing the claim for brokerage commission.This judgment confirms that even where a contract does not expressly provide for reimbursement of an improvement, a party who knowingly receives and retains a permanent benefit at another person’s expense may still be required to compensate that person under the principles of unjust enrichment.

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.