มาตรา 387 — Rescission after notice to perform: reasonable period
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าคู่สัญญาฝ่ายหนึ่งไม่ชำระหนี้ อีกฝ่ายหนึ่งจะกำหนดระยะเวลาพอสมควร แล้วบอกกล่าวให้ฝ่ายนั้นชำระหนี้ภายในระยะเวลานั้นก็ได้ ถ้าและฝ่ายนั้นไม่ชำระหนี้ภายในระยะเวลาที่กำหนดให้ไซร้ อีกฝ่ายหนึ่งจะเลิกสัญญาเสียก็ได้
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ
If one part does not perform the obligation, the other party may fix a reasonable period and notify him to perform within that period. If he does not perform within that period, the other party may rescind the contract.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 387 is part of Book 2 (Obligations) 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 notice period must be 'reasonable' — courts will scrutinise if it is too short. Where the parties' conduct shows they no longer treat the original completion date as essential, the right to rescind for delay is lost. For laypersons: before cancelling a contract for someone's failure to pay, give them a fair warning period first.
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. 8605/2552 (2009)
Where the parties' conduct shows they no longer treat the original deadline as essential, the right to rescind for delay under Section 387 is extinguished.
Where the parties repeatedly amended construction plans causing inevitable delay beyond the original completion date, it was found that the parties had by their conduct ceased to treat the original date as an essential term; the employer therefore could not rescind for the contractor's delay.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 452/2549 (2006)
A creditor who repeatedly accepts late payment waives the automatic rescission clause and must give notice before exercising a right to rescind.
An instalments contract that stipulated automatic rescission on late payment was waived by the creditor's repeated acceptance of late payments over 22 instalments; the creditor therefore could not subsequently invoke the automatic rescission clause without prior warning.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
If a contract says it terminates automatically on breach, does the innocent party still need to give notice under Section 387?
Not if the automatic clause is still valid. However, if the innocent party repeatedly accepts breaches (e.g., always accepts late payments), courts may find the automatic clause has been waived, requiring notice before rescission.