Legal Analysis of the Principle of Mistake in Thai Law
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
When examining Sections 156 to 158 which pertains to the principle of mistake under Thai law, a question arises as to the adequacy of such three existing provisions in tackling current problematic situations.
There are two types of mistakes as enshrined in the Thai Civil and Commercial Code (the CCC), namely, a mistake of an essential element of a juristic act resulting in voidness as per section 156, and a mistake of a quality of a person or of the property that is deemed as an essential element of the juristic act resulting in voidability as per section 157. Apparently, these two provisions provide protection to the mistaken party to preserve the actual will. Hence, this is a reflection of the subjectivity, rather than the objectivity, principle at play. There is only one exception in the case of gross negligence pursuant to Section 158 to protect the other bona fide party which is inadequate to maintain the trust between parties and would lead to injustice and uncertainty of commercial.
Therefore, the author has conducted a comparative study to analyze the principle of mistake which includes English law, French law, and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016. Accordingly, the author proposes additional conditions and exception for nullification or avoidance of a bilateral juristic act which is similar to Article 3.2.2 of the UNIDROIT principles. In so doing, the principle of mistake in Thai law would be more fair and compatible with the current state of the economy.
Article Details
References
Beale H, Cases, Materials and Text on Contract Law, (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2019)
Bell J, Boyron S, and Whittaker S, Principles of French Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2007)
Hutasingh P, The Principle of Juristic Act and Obligation (Nitibunnakarn 1964) (ประกอบ หุตะสิงห์, กฎหมายแพ่งลักษณะนิติกรรมและหนี้ (นิติบรรณการ 2507))
Mckeag D C, Mistake in Contract: A Study in Comparative Jurisprudence (2nd edn, the Law Book Exchange 2004)
Nanakorn P, The Story of Nakorn Si Thammarat’s Province: Royal Funeral Memorial Book of Nukul Nanakorn (1999) (พินัย ณ นคร, เล่าเรื่องเมืองคอน: อนุสรณ์ในงานพระราชทานเพลิงศพ อาจารย์นุกูล ณ นคร (2542))
Sanongchart S, The Commentary on Juristic Act and Contract under the CCC (10th edn, Nithibunnakarn 2008) (ศักดิ์ สนองชาติ, คำอธิบายโดยย่อประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ว่าด้วยนิติกรรมสัญญา (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 10, นิติบรรณการ 2551))
Sethabutr J, The Principle of Juristic Act and Obligation (7th edn, Faculty of Law Thammasat University 2013) (จิ๊ด เศรษฐบุตร, หลักกฎหมายแพ่งลักษณะนิติกรรมและหนี้ (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 7, คณะนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ 2556))
Stone R and Devenney J, Text, Cases, and Materials on Contract Law (3rd edn, Routledge Press 2014)
Miric M K, ‘A Critical Look at the Subjective and Objective Purposes of Contract in Aharon Barak’s Theory of Interpretation’ (2016) 9(2) Baltic Journal of Law and Politics 1
Barnes W, ‘The French Subjective Theory of Contract: Separating Rhetoric from Reality’ (2008) 83 Tulane Law Review 359
Cass. Com., 4 July 1973, B IV.238; D1974.538
Smith v. Hughes, (1871) LR 6 QB 597, Court of Appeal
The Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand
The Code Civil of France
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016