Article 164: Duress as a ground for voidance
Statutory text (Thai original)
การแสดงเจตนาเพราะถูกข่มขู่เป็นโมฆียะการข่มขู่ที่จะทำให้การใดตกเป็นโมฆียะนั้น จะต้องเป็นการข่มขู่ที่จะให้เกิดภัยอันใกล้จะถึงและร้ายแรงถึงขนาดที่จะจูงใจให้ผู้ถูกข่มขู่มีมูลต้องกลัว ซึ่งถ้ามิได้มีการข่มขู่เช่นนั้น การนั้นก็คงจะมิได้กระทำขึ้น
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
English translation
A declaration of intention is voidable if made under duress. Duress, in order to make an act voidable, must be imminent and so severe that makes him fear and without it, the act would not have been made.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 164 is part of Book 1 (General Principles) of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code. This entry is awaiting firm-authored commentary; the statutory text above is verbatim from the Office of the Council of State (OCS Krisdika) Thai source, with the English translation from the FAO/UN FAOLEX repository. Always rely on the Thai original for legal proceedings.
Why this matters in practice
For lawyers: the party claiming duress must prove both imminence and severity of the threat, and that the threat actually induced the act. For laypersons: if you signed a contract because someone threatened serious and immediate harm, you may be able to have it set aside, but you must act promptly.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil and Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 9277/2547 (2004)
Where a defendant registered a trade mark, and so disputed the plaintiff's rights in it, while the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2474 was in force, an action to cancel that registration is governed by the general ten-year prescription in the FORMER section 164, together with section 41(1) of the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2474, those being the provisions in force when the plaintiff's rights were disputed. The claimant need not sue within the five years from the registrar's order that section 67 of the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2534 would require. Note on placement: the provision applied is the FORMER section 164, which contained the general prescription rule. The section 164 now in force is a different provision, under which a declaration of intention made under duress is voidable.
The plaintiffs owned the trade marks written in Thai, Chinese and English as Toh Kang and Tang Toh Kang. The first defendant had registered a trade mark disputing their rights while the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2474 was still in force. The Supreme Court held that an action to cancel that registration was therefore subject to the general ten-year prescription under the former section 164, read with section 41(1) of the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2474, which were the provisions in force when the plaintiffs' rights were disputed, and that the plaintiffs did not have to bring the action within the five years from the registrar's order for registration prescribed by section 67 of the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2534.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 433 Supreme Court decisions (1952 to 2008)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 2624/2551 (2008)
- Decision 5565/2548 (2005)
- Decision 1962/2548 (2005)
- Decision 9277/2547 (2004)
- Decision 3846/2546 (2003)
- Decision 4312/2545 (2002)
- Decision 6082/2544 (2001)
- Décision 918/2544 (2001)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
- Article 165 86
- Article 193/30 53
- Article 448 25
- Article 169 20
- Article 166 18
- Article 224 16
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Quels éléments doivent être prouvés pour que la contrainte rende un contrat annulable en vertu de l'article 164 ?
Trois éléments doivent être réunis : (1) une menace a été proférée, (2) cette menace impliquait un préjudice grave et imminent, et (3) la gravité de la menace était suffisante pour qu’une personne raisonnable la craigne et agisse en conséquence. Le préjudice menacé ne doit pas encore être survenu.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Civil and Commercial Code, s. 164 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Civil and Commercial Code (Thailand), s. 164. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-code/section-164/ (accessed 30 août 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.พ.พ. มาตรา 164 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-code/section-164/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-code/section-164/"><p>A declaration of intention is voidable if made under duress. Duress, in order to make an act voidable, must be imminent and so severe that makes him fear and without it, the act would not have been made.</p><footer>Civil and Commercial Code, s. 164 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-code/section-164/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.