มาตรา 218 — Impossibility caused by the debtor
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าการชำระหนี้กลายเป็นพ้นวิสัยจะทำได้ เพราะพฤติการณ์อันใดอันหนึ่งซึ่งลูกหนี้ต้องรับผิดชอบไซร้ ท่านว่าลูกหนี้จะต้องใช้ค่าสินไหมทดแทนให้แก่เจ้าหนี้เพื่อค่าเสียหายอย่างใด ๆ อันเกิดแต่การไม่ชำระหนี้นั้นในกรณีที่การชำระหนี้กลายเป็นพ้นวิสัยแต่เพียงบางส่วน ถ้าหากว่าส่วนที่ยังเป็นวิสัยจะทำได้นั้นจะเป็นอันไร้ประโยชน์แก่เจ้าหนี้แล้ว เจ้าหนี้จะไม่ยอมรับชำระหนี้ส่วนที่ยังเป็นวิสัยจะทำได้นั้นแล้ว และเรียกค่าสินไหมทดแทนเพื่อการไม่ชำระหนี้เสียทั้งหมดทีเดียวก็ได้
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ
When the performance becomes impossible in consequence of a circumstance for which the debtor is responsible, the debtor shall compensate the creditor for any damage arising from the non-performance. In case of partial impossibility the creditor may, by declining the still possible part of the performance, demand compensation for non-performance of the entire obligation, if the still possible part of performance is useless to him.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 218 is the counterpart to §219 (impossibility without fault) — between them they allocate the risk of subsequent impossibility in a contract. The debtor is liable not only for intentional acts but also for negligence and for events caused by employees or agents (§220). In partial impossibility the creditor may accept the remaining performance and claim damages for the rest, or rescind the whole contract if the partial performance is no longer useful.
Why this matters in practice
Lawyers: To engage section 218 the impossibility must fall within the debtor's sphere of risk — fault, a contractual warranty, or a circumstance the debtor undertook to guard against. Force majeure breaks the chain. Laypersons: If a contractor or seller cannot deliver because of something that was their own fault or their own risk, you can claim compensation; where what they can still deliver is useless to you, you may refuse it and claim for everything.
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. 22/2536 (1993)
A paid depositary that cannot return deposited goods due to its own employee's misconduct is liable in damages; the impossibility falls within the depositary's responsibility.
A paid depositary's employee secretly removed the plaintiff's deposited goods from the warehouse to evade customs duty, causing the goods to be seized as evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court held this was not force majeure but the depositary's own failure to exercise the care of a reasonable person; the depositary was therefore liable under section 218 to pay the value of the goods it could not return.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5671/2534 (1991)
Where a debtor's personal undertaking to transfer third-party property becomes impossible because of that third party's refusal, the creditor's remedy shifts to damages under section 218.
A divorce settlement required the defendant to transfer land held in the name of a company he managed. The Court held that the settlement bound him personally, not the company, and that the company's shareholders' resolution blocking the transfer meant performance had become impossible. Because the impossibility arose from circumstances connected to the defendant's own undertaking, the court could not compel specific performance but the section 218 damages remedy remained available.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.