Section 1000
Statutory text (Thai original)
ธนาคารใดได้รับเงินไว้เพื่อผู้เคยค้าของตนโดยสุจริตและปราศจากประมาทเลินเล่อ อันเป็นเงินเขาใช้ให้ตามเช็คขีดคร่อมทั่วไปก็ดี ขีดคร่อมเฉพาะให้แก่ตนก็ดี หากปรากฏว่าผู้เคยค้านั้นไม่มีสิทธิหรือมีสิทธิเพียงอย่างบกพร่องในเช็คนั้นไซร้ ท่านว่าเพียงแต่เหตุที่ได้รับเงินไว้หาทำให้ธนาคารนั้นต้องรับผิดต่อผู้เป็นเจ้าของอันแท้จริงแห่งเช็คนั้นแต่อย่างหนึ่งอย่างใดไม่
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
Firm annotation
Section 1000 is part of Book 3 (Specific Contracts) 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
Lawyers: This section provides the statutory collecting-bank defence. The bank must show it acted in good faith and without negligence. Where the bank knew or should have known of a defect in title but still collected, the good faith defence fails. Laypeople: If your cheque is collected by a bank for someone who did not have the right to it, the bank itself is not automatically liable — you need to pursue the wrongdoer directly.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil and Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 13113/2553 (2010)
A cheque specifying named payees with 'or bearer' struck out must be paid only to those named; a collecting bank that pays another person cannot rely on the Section 1000 defence.
A cheque issued by Bangkok Metropolitan Administration for land expropriation compensation, made payable jointly to two named recipients with the word 'or bearer' struck out, must be paid only to the named payees — not to the bearer. A bank that paid a person other than the named payee was not entitled to the protection of the collecting bank defence.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3801/2541 (1998)
A bank whose employee negligently collects a restricted cheque for an unauthorised person cannot rely on the good faith defence and is liable for the loss.
The plaintiff issued a cheque marked 'not transferable' to a named payee, but the bank's employee negligently processed it for a different person. The bank was held liable for its employee's negligent conduct in collecting a cheque for an unauthorised person.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.