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

June 27, 2014

Dilemma: File a Claim or Nix the Contract?

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Having multiple legal options is generally viewed as positive in a business context. It may, however, also imply the need to make a difficult decision—one with significant practical and legal consequences. This is particularly so where the transaction is unique, has significant monetary value, or has the potential to affect existing third-party contracts. Real estate transactions fall firmly into this category.

Take a situation in which parties enter into a sale and purchase agreement for real estate. If the seller fails to perform its obligations under the contract, the buyer who is not in breach must decide how best to proceed with the exercise of its legal rights.

These options are provided in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) and have been further clarified by the Supreme Court.

Together, they establish two specific remedies for the buyer: (i) the right to claim specific performance under the contract, e.g., force transfer of ownership as contemplated by the contract; or (ii) the right to terminate the contract and restore the non-breaching party to its pre-contract condition.

The Supreme Court has made clear that these options are mutually exclusive, so a non-breaching party must clearly adopt one or the other. This is because one option legally terminates the contract, while the other maintains the breaching party’s obligation to perform under the contract—positions that are in legal contradiction.

Deciding on a specific remedy to address the seller’s breach thus requires careful consideration of the benefits and potential disadvantages of each option. In this article, we elaborate on issues the buyer should consider before exercising the right to claim specific performance or terminate the contract entirely.

Claim for Specific Performance

According to Section 213 of the CCC, when one party fails to perform its obligations under a contract, the other is entitled to enforce the contract by filing a civil claim against the defaulting party asking the court for compulsory performance.

Under Section 213, if the obligation is to carry out a juristic act such as transferring ownership of property, the court is empowered to order specific performance on the basis that such performance is consistent with the seller’s declaration of intent at the time of contracting.

In addition to obtaining specific performance, a non-breaching buyer has the right to claim compensation for any damages incurred from the seller’s failure to perform the contractual obligation. This may include contractually stipulated penalties for non-performance.

Terminate the Contract

According to Section 391 of the CCC, when a seller does not fulfill its contractual obligations, the buyer has the right to rescind the contract entirely, and each party is thereafter bound to restore the other to its pre-contract condition.

To terminate the contract, the buyer must express its intent to terminate, typically by sending a termination notice to the seller. Such expression of intent cannot be withdrawn.

The buyer also has the right to claim compensation for damages incurred from the seller’s failure to perform its obligation.

For example, if the seller fails to transfer land ownership and the buyer chooses to terminate the contract, the buyer can claim for both the price paid and for damages. After the contract is terminated, the buyer cannot claim for specific performance.

After the contract is terminated, parties then have the obligation to restore each other to their pre-contract condition. A non-defaulting party may refuse to restore the defaulting party to its pre-contract condition, however, if the latter fails to restore the former to its pre-contract condition.

Consider the case of a buyer who has placed an initial deposit for land and is permitted by the seller to possess the land before transfer of ownership.

If the seller fails to transfer ownership within the prescribed period and the buyer terminates the contract due to such breach, then the seller is required to return the deposit. If the seller refuses, however, the buyer can possess the land until the deposit is returned.

Conclusion

Prior to deciding how to proceed with a claim for specific performance or contract termination, a buyer should carefully assess its objectives in entering the contract and the seller’s ability to perform if at all possible including conducting financial due diligence. The conduct of adequate due diligence can significantly reduce the risk of breach and can avoid the cost and time required to litigate a dispute.

If avoiding a dispute is unavoidable, however, negotiation and settlement efforts should be seriously considered, as they may lead to a solution that is preferable to protracted litigation. In some cases where litigation is an unavoidable last resort, understanding the best option available to a non-breaching party can help to maximize the benefits from the dispute resolution process.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 26, 2025
Thailand’s consumer protection authorities have strengthened oversight of residential leasing businesses following numerous complaints about unfair lease terms, including unjustified deposit forfeitures and excessive utility charges. The Contract Committee of Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board issued the Notification of the Contract Committee Re: The Stipulation of Residential Property Leasing as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), published in the Government Gazette on June 6, 2025. The notification becomes effective on September 4, 2025, and repeals the prior notification issued in 2019. The notification prescribes two types of standard residential lease contracts: short-term residential lease contracts (for leases of not more than three years) and long-term residential lease contracts (for leases of more than three years up to 30 years or for the lessee’s lifetime). However, use of these standard contract forms is not compulsory, and parties may use any form as long as the terms do not contradict the notification’s requirements. Expanded Scope The notification expands the scope of enforcement to include any lessor with at least three residential units, while the 2019 notification applies only to businesses leasing five or more residential units. Hotels and dormitory operators are excluded, as they are regulated under other specific laws. Residential lease contracts entered into under the 2019 notification will remain valid and enforceable until the expiration of the contract. Any residential lease contract executed from September 4, 2025, onward must comply with the new notification. The notification also expressly extends its applicability to lease contracts made through online platforms. Electronically executed lease contracts must comply with the required and prohibited terms specified in the notification as well as applicable laws governing electronic transactions in Thailand. Mandatory Terms and Conditions Residential lease contracts must contain clearly legible Thai text no smaller than two millimeters in size and no more
Read More
August 22, 2025
On August 12, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Environment submitted a draft law amending several provisions of the Land Law 2024 (“Draft Amended Land Law” or “Draft”) for government consultation and public comment. The Draft primarily aims to address three controversial issues in Vietnam’s land regime concerning (i) land pricing, (ii) land clearance, and (iii) the allocation of land outside auctions, following policy set out by Resolution 18-NQ/TW and the newly adopted Resolution 69-NQ/TW on land governance modernization. Land pricing is potentially one of the most important areas among the proposed reforms. The Draft, however, has notably not addressed a major concern recently raised by the public: When a project has been allocated or leased land, but the relevant authority has not yet issued the land-price decision, a “supplemental charge” continues to accrue for the entire waiting period. Under current rules, this charge is calculated at 5.4% per year on the ultimately determined land-use fee or land rent, materially shifting project economics and pricing risks to developers or end-buyers. Core Reforms on Land Pricing The Draft Amended Land Law sets out a number of reforms on land pricing, including the following: Land price tables: The Draft maintains provincial land price tables but clarifies the scope of application: They are used to determine land-related financial obligations of land users and compensation when the state recovers land; the government will detail the adjustment coefficient regime, ratios for land-use fee calculation by land type/user/form, and deductible infrastructure costs. Provincial people’s committees will continue to issue land price tables every five years, effective from January 1 of the first year in the cycle, with authority to supplement within the cycle as necessary. In provinces with cadastral maps and digital land price databases, the tables may be established down to the land-parcel level,
Read More
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More