มาตรา 222 — Scope of damages — foreseeability rule
Statutory text (Thai original)
การเรียกเอาค่าเสียหายนั้น ได้แก่เรียกค่าสินไหมทดแทนเพื่อความเสียหายเช่นที่ตามปกติย่อมเกิดขึ้นแต่การไม่ชำระหนี้นั้นเจ้าหนี้จะเรียกค่าสินไหมทดแทนได้ แม้กระทั่งเพื่อความเสียหายอันเกิดแต่พฤติการณ์พิเศษ หากว่าคู่กรณีที่เกี่ยวข้องได้คาดเห็นหรือควรจะได้คาดเห็นพฤติการณ์เช่นนั้นล่วงหน้าก่อนแล้ว
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ
The claim of damages is for compensation for all such damage as usually arises from non performance. The creditor may demand compensation even for such damage as has arisen from special circumstances, if the party concerned foresaw or ought to have foreseen such circumstances.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 222 codifies the Hadley v. Baxendale foreseeability rule into Thai law. In practice this is the most contested damages provision: defendants argue plaintiffs' claimed losses (consequential business interruption, reputational harm, lost downstream contracts) were not foreseeable; plaintiffs frame them as ordinary results of breach. Litigation tip: build the foreseeability record at the contract stage — recitals stating the parties' purpose, expected revenue, and downstream commitments are admissible to show what was contemplated.
Why this matters in practice
Lawyers: Ordinary damages are recoverable without special pleading; special damages require proof that the particular loss was within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting — not merely at breach. Laypersons: You can claim for the typical losses caused by the breach; for unusual or large consequential losses you must show the other side knew or should have known those losses could result when the contract was made.
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. 4844/2545 (2002)
Loss measured as market value of goods lost by a bailee for reward is ordinary damage recoverable under section 222 without proof of special circumstances.
The defendant arranged overseas warehousing for the plaintiff's goods and collected storage fees, thereby becoming a joint bailee for reward. When the goods were lost through the defendants' failure to exercise proper care, the Court applied section 222 to assess damages as the market value of the goods actually lost — the ordinary measure flowing from the breach of a storage obligation.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between ordinary damages and special damages under section 222?
Ordinary damages are those losses that typically arise from a breach of that kind of obligation — recoverable without more. Special damages are losses arising from unusual circumstances specific to the parties or transaction; they are recoverable only if the party in breach foresaw or should have foreseen those circumstances at the time the contract was made.