You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 31, 2013

Buying a House in a Land Development Project: Look Before You Leap

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Recently, consumer interest in purchasing residential homes in Thailand has skyrocketed. In response to this, developers have launched numerous residential development projects catering to both domestic and foreign purchasers. Consumers now have the opportunity to contemplate purchasing homes of varying quality while also factoring in developer reputation and risk. When thinking about buying a home in a land development project, there are a few major issues buyers should consider both before and after making the purchase.

Is the project protected under Thailand’s Land Development Act?

Under Section 4 of the Land Development Act of 2000, “land development” means the sale of land divided into sub-lots from one main lot of land or from several lots of adjoining land in return for property or benefit as remuneration if at least 10 sub-lots are sold. This includes projects where the land is divided into fewer than 10 sub-lots but subsequent divisions are made within three years, resulting in the combined land being at least 10 lots.

Buyers should note that a developer might seek to avoid compliance with the Act by dividing the land into less than 10 sub-lots, so that the project may not have to provide public facilities or services, such as roads, parks, or children’s playgrounds.

Is the project being completed as described in the contract or as in the developer’s advertising materials?

Advertisements purporting to provide services or public facilities are regarded as contractual obligations between the buyer and the developer (Section 11 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act of 2008). Therefore, the land developer must fulfill promises made in the house sale advertisements, as they are contractual terms.

Furthermore, the land developer must request a bank or financial institution to conclude a guarantee with the Land Development Commission. If the land developer fails to provide for public facilities or services, the bank or financial institution will pay the commission the amount specified in the guarantee, so the commission can spend it on the provision of those public facilities or services (Section 24 of the Land Development Act).

How will the public facilities or services be maintained both during and after purchase?

Sometimes, after developing a project, a land developer fails to maintain public facilities or services in good working condition. Thai law provides that buyers of at least half the sub-lots under a project can pass a resolution to establish a developed-estate juristic entity, which is registered with the land official and controlled by an executive committee and the buyers. The management of public facilities or services can then be transferred to this developed-estate juristic entity (Sections 44 and 45 of the Land Development Act) to ensure they are maintained effectively.

Will there be any issues related to the collection of common fees?

Once the developed-estate juristic entity is established, all buyers of the developed land become members. If there are any sub-lots that have not yet been sold or which are transferred back to the land developer, the land developer becomes a member of the developed-estate juristic entity (Section 47 the Land Development Act).

Buyers of developed land are liable to pay common fees for the management and maintenance of public facilities or services, and land developers are liable to pay common fees for sub-lots that have not been sold (Section 49 of the Land Development Act).

To enforce contractual obligations in case of default, the developed-estate juristic entity can file a civil claim against a buyer or land developer who fails to pay the common fees.

What will happen if there are manufacturing defects?

If defects are found before the transfer of ownership, the buyer should submit a written objection (preferably acknowledged by the developer or its representative’s signature) outlining the list of defects (with photos) and requesting the land developer to repair the defects within the prescribed contractual period. If the land developer fails to repair the defects or does so inadequately, then on or before the transfer date, the buyer should present objections and supporting evidence of those defects to the land officer, informing the officer that the transfer cannot proceed unless and until the defects have been fixed.

If the defects are discovered after ownership transfer, the land developer is likely contractually liable. Exceptions include: (1) if the buyer knew or would have known of the defects at the time of sale; (2) if the defects appear at the time of delivery and the buyer accepts the house without objection; and (3) if the house was sold by public auction. The law allows buyers to take action concerning liability for defects within one year from the date the defects are discovered (Sections 472, 473, and 474 of the Civil and Commercial Code).

What are the key steps before making a purchase?

Before buying a house in a land development project, buyers should study the project and the environment to determine whether the government has any plan to use the land or adjacent land or if the land could be subject to expropriation, such as for future transport projects.

Buyers should review the corporate land developer by considering its previous projects and its corporate and financial status. Buyers can also conduct due diligence on the developer’s authorized directors to determine whether they have the authority to sign the sale and purchase contract. This may include investigating whether the developer or its directors have been involved in previous consumer claims.

Finally, buyers should examine the land and the relevant title deeds and prior title rights to confirm whether the developer owns the land or has the right to use it with no risk of encumbrance.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section