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​ 

July 3, 2026
Thailand will keep its reduced government fees for property sale and mortgage registration in place for another year. Two Ministry of Interior notifications, issued following a cabinet resolution on June 30, 2026, and published in the Government Gazette on July 1, 2026, extend the previously reduced fee levels through June 30, 2027. The reduced registration fees apply to the sale and mortgage of the same property types covered in prior versions of the scheme: detached houses, semidetached houses, row houses, commercial buildings, land transferred together with such buildings, and condominium units. To be eligible for the reduced fees, the purchase price, the officially assessed value, and the mortgage amount must each not exceed THB 7 million, and the buyer must be a Thai individual. The reduced registration fees for eligible sales and mortgages are calculated as follows: Sale: 0.01% of the official assessed value (reduced from standard rate of 2%) Mortgage: 0.01% of the mortgage amount (reduced from standard rate of 1%) The reduced mortgage registration fee applies only if the mortgage is registered at the same time as the sale of the property.
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More