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​ 

August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More