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​ 

November 28, 2025
On November 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued Resolution No. 8/2025/NQ-CP to extend and expand the pilot program allowing Vietnamese citizens who meet certain conditions to gamble at three integrated casino resorts in Vietnam: Corona Resorts & Casino Phu Quoc (An Giang Province) – Effective immediately, and continuing an ongoing pilot program that started in 2019. The Grand Casino Ho Tram (Ho Chi Minh City) – New pilot program for five years starting November 26, 2025. Van Don Integrated Casino & Tourism Complex (Quang Ninh Province) – New pilot program for five years from the date the casino receives its license. The pilot program was originally established under Decree No. 03/2017/ND-CP on casino business, which also sets out the specific eligibility conditions for Vietnamese citizens. After the pilot period, these projects must stop allowing Vietnamese players until the government issues further decisions. This expansion of the pilot program comes after Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) released a draft decree earlier this year proposing significant changes to the regulatory framework governing casino operations. These revisions, which focus on increasing fiscal contributions from local players and strengthening compliance obligations for casino operators nationwide, are detailed below. Proposed Increase in Casino Entry Fees for Vietnamese Players The draft decree increases the entry fees applicable to Vietnamese citizens permitted to play at casinos. Under the current regulations, Vietnamese players are required to pay an entry fee of VND 1 million (approx. USD 38) for 24 consecutive hours or VND 25 million (approx. USD 950) per month. The draft decree proposes increasing these fees to VND 2.5 million (approx. USD 95) for 24 consecutive hours and VND 50 million (approx. USD 1,900) per month, effectively doubling the existing amounts and marking the first major fee revision since the pilot program allowing Vietnamese players
Read More
November 21, 2025
On November 17, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Interior introduced significant regulatory changes to make rooftop solar adoption easier and more cost-effective for property owners. Ministerial Regulation No. 72 B.E. 2568 (2025), issued under the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 (1979), was published in the Government Gazette on November 19, 2025, with immediate effect. Background Under the Building Control Act (BCA), any alteration made to a building requires either notification of the relevant authority or application for a building alteration permit—unless the alteration falls under a separate list of exceptions specified in the ministerial regulations issued under the BCA. In 2015, installation of solar rooftops on any residential building under 160 square meters was added to this list of exceptions, subject to inspection and notification requirements. The newly enacted regulation now eliminates many of these requirements and introduces a broader and more permissive framework to promote solar adoption nationwide. Key Changes Specifically, the regulation introduces three major changes: Expanded exemption from the definition of “building alteration”: The installation of solar panels on any building roof—regardless of the type of building or the total area of the installation—is no longer considered a building alteration under the BCA, provided that the total weight of the installation does not exceed 20 kg/m2. Removal of structural integrity certification requirement: The new regulation eliminates the obligation to obtain a structural stability certificate from a licensed civil engineer. Removal of notification requirement: Property owners or possessors are no longer required to notify the local authority before installation of a solar rooftop. Impact This significant streamlining of requirements for solar rooftop installation is expected to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy in the country, particularly for residential and commercial properties—similar to the way Thailand’s December 2024 removal of licensing requirements for factory solar rooftop installations encouraged such
Read More
November 19, 2025
Litigation has its place in resolving business disputes, but it is often time-consuming and costly. In Thailand, a straightforward civil case can take a year or more to reach judgment at first instance, and appeals can extend that timeline further. Court filing fees are tied to the value of the claim, typically amounting to around two percent for claims up to THB 50 million, before accounting for attorney fees, translation costs, expert work, and the internal time that management must devote to the case. Against this backdrop, Thai law provides an alternative pathway for parties to attempt resolution before filing suit, and Thai courts commonly encourage mediation as part of the dispute-resolution process. Specifically, prelitigation mediation is a court-supervised process designed to facilitate confidential settlement discussions at an early stage. Participation is voluntary and requires the consent of both parties. The process does not replace litigation but is available in parallel as an initial step for interested parties. If the parties reach an agreement, the settlement can be recorded as a consent judgment that is directly enforceable in Thailand. If no settlement is reached, the parties retain their full right to proceed with a court claim. Reasons to Consider Prelitigation Mediation Prelitigation mediation can offer several advantages. It may shorten timelines from months or years to just weeks, reduce legal costs, and keep discussions confidential. It also allows parties to pursue practical, business-driven solutions or tailored remedies that address their specific needs—outcomes that may not be available through traditional litigation. To facilitate this process, under Thailand’s Civil Procedure Code, parties may petition the court to initiate prelitigation mediation before filing a suit. If the opposing party agrees, the court appoints a mediator to work with the parties under established mediation rules. In such a scenario, there are no court
Read More
November 14, 2025
Interest in data center land acquisition has increased significantly over the past year, with a notable rise in inquiries from investors seeking to establish digital infrastructure in Thailand. Although the sector is still in its early stages, this emerging wave of development represents a significant shift in Thailand’s technology infrastructure landscape, driven primarily by multinational technology companies and operators looking to expand their regional presence. Project Development The data center sector in Thailand is attracting a diverse range of international investors, though with clear geographic patterns. Most investors are from China, Singapore, and Japan, with some additional interest from countries outside Asia, including the United States and Europe. This investor base consists primarily of multinational tech companies and operators seeking to establish new facilities rather than acquire existing assets. Data center business activities are also a sector promoted by Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI), which offers investors both tax and nontax privileges as well as exemptions to foreign investment and land-ownership restrictions. Projects currently underway are still largely in the land acquisition and construction phase. Unlike more mature markets where many facilities are operational and generating revenue, the predominant focus in Thailand remains on securing suitable land and beginning the building process. This means that while interest is high and land assembly is accelerating, the sector as a whole has not yet reached the operational phase that will ultimately drive licensing applications and full regulatory compliance. The licensing process itself remains at an early stage, as most projects must first complete their facilities before applying for the specific licenses required from the telecommunications authority. Once the facilities are built, the next critical step will be obtaining these telecommunications licenses, which are mandatory for data center operations. Legal and Regulatory Considerations The complexity of data center development in Thailand requires
Read More