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

March 11, 2024

Thailand Releases New Draft Liability for Defective Goods Act

Subscribe to Updates

The Thai government has released an updated draft Liability for Defective Goods Act after the Office of the Consumer Protection Board completed its second round of public hearings on the law in December 2023. The draft law sets out a new liability regime for different types of goods, and is being drafted in response to concerns over inadequate protection for buyers and the current lack of clear liability regulations for defective goods.

Key Points in the Draft Act

The latest draft introduces new and broader definitions for “seller” and “buyer,” which replace “business operator” and “consumer” as defined in the previous draft.

The act will apply to and govern hire-purchase contracts and sales contracts and will have retroactive effect on agreements that were made before the act’s effective date.

The draft’s new liability regime has the following characteristics:

  • Liability provisions are specified for different categories of goods while excluding used products and living animals.
  • Sellers are presumed to be at fault for defects that exist at the time of delivery, with specific timelines and conditions for (1) automobiles and motorcycles; (2) electrical appliances, electronic devices, and mechanical devices; and (3) other products.
  • Agreements made before the discovery of a defect are deemed void if they conflict with the act or unfairly burden buyers.

The latest draft also sets new prescription periods:

  • For the “other products” category, the prescription period is one year from the discovery of a defect or from the seller’s agreement to repair, replace, or reduce the sale price.
  • For the “automobiles and motorcycles” and “electrical appliances, electronic devices, and mechanical devices” categories, the prescription period is two years under similar conditions.

Now that the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act has passed the public hearing stage, its potential impact on the public is being assessed further before the draft continues moving through the legislative process.

For more details on Thailand’s draft Liability for Defective Goods Act, or any aspect of Thailand’s regulations on consumer protection and producer liability, please contact Kobkit Thienpreecha at [email protected], Witchupong Chittchang at [email protected], Ajaree Trachukul at [email protected], or Sireethorn Wijan at [email protected].

Related Professionals

RELATED INSIGHTS​

April 23, 2024
Litigation is usually the last resort in resolving disputes. Most parties to a dispute try to avoid litigation altogether, fearing that seeking recourse with the courts or arbitration will lead to a disruption in commercial relationships, result in increased legal expenses, and generally lengthen the period in which the dispute remains unresolved. While some of these concerns may indeed be legitimate, sometimes litigation is the only means for a party to obtain relief. For parties contemplating such recourse, it is reassuring to know that the Thai court system is generally an accessible, unbiased, and balanced vehicle for the resolution of disputes. Civil Litigation in Thailand aims to introduce some of the fundamentals of Thai civil court procedures and practices. This brief guide covers the main issues concerning civil litigation in Thailand as either a plaintiff or a defendant. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More
April 22, 2024
Trademark disputes in Thailand have undergone a significant transformation with the recent implementation of streamlined procedures aimed at expediting legal proceedings. This article explores the traditional process for resolving noncomplex trademark cases and introduces the latest regulatory amendments designed to enhance efficiency within the Thai legal framework. Traditional Process Overview The trademark registration process in Thailand involves several steps, including filing, examination, and granting registration. If the trademark registrar rejects an application on substantive grounds, applicants can appeal to the Board of Trademarks. If the board upholds the registrar’s decision, applicants can then pursue a civil suit with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the trademark registrar’s and the board’s orders. Previous Regulations and Practice Historically, civil cases concerning trademark registrations followed standard procedures outlined in Thailand’s Civil Procedure Code, with specific adaptations for intellectual property matters under the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996). Proceedings entailed various stages, including settlement of issues, evidence hearing, and judgment hearing, culminating in the opportunity for appeal. New Regulations and Practice In 2023, a pivotal development emerged with the issuance of Regulation for Intellectual Property and International Trade Cases B.E. 2566 (2023). This regulatory update introduced section 18, which deals with cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions, such as those concerning trademark nondistinctiveness or opposition cases against Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property. Section 18 grants the IP&IT Court the authority to order parties to submit documents and evidence without the need for witness examination, thereby streamlining proceedings. Below is a comparison of the trademark procedures for cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions: Traditional Approach Streamlined Approach Implementation and Implications In practice, the implementation
Read More
April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More

Contact

We have seven offices in six countries
across Southeast Asia.

Contact Us

Careers

We are always seeking great people to grow
our amazing team.

Join Us

Networks

© 2023 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. All rights reserved.

© 2020 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

| Legal Notice