Article 222Étendue des dommages, règle de la prévisibilité

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4844/2545 (2002)

   Section 222 paragraph two allowed the plaintiff's lost profit to be recovered as damage arising from special circumstances that the bailee ought to have foreseen. The market value of the goods themselves was recoverable not under section 222 but under the liability of a bailee for reward in sections 657 and 659.

   The defendant arranged overseas warehousing for the plaintiff's goods and collected the storage fees in its own name, so it and its associate were joint bailees for reward under sections 657 and 659 paragraph two. Having failed to exercise the care and skill of a person in its trade under section 659 paragraph three, it was liable for the loss of the goods and could not plead force majeure. Because the defendant knew the plaintiff had imported the goods to sell at a profit in Thailand and had handled its freight forwarding for years, it ought to have foreseen that the loss would cost the plaintiff its profit on the sale, so the lost profit was recoverable as damage from special circumstances under section 222 paragraph two.

   Lire la décision complète (deka.in.th)

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2438/2545 (2002)

   Damages for late completion of a construction contract are assessed as losses that ordinarily and foreseeably flow from that breach.

   In a construction contract dispute the Court examined which party was in default and what damages ordinarily flow from late or defective completion, applying the section 222 foreseeability principle to limit recovery to losses that normally arise from a contractor's failure to complete on time.

   Lire la décision complète (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.