Section 150 — Acts contrary to public order or good morals are void
Statutory text (Thai original)
การใดมีวัตถุประสงค์เป็นการต้องห้ามชัดแจ้งโดยกฎหมาย เป็นการพ้นวิสัย หรือเป็นการขัดต่อความสงบเรียบร้อยหรือศีลธรรมอันดีของประชาชน การนั้นเป็นโมฆะ
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
English translation
An act the object of which is expressly prohibited by law, or is impossible, or is contrary to public order or good morals, is void.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 150 is the most frequently cited 'nullity' provision in Thai contract litigation. Courts regularly invoke it to strike down: (a) sham land transactions designed to evade the foreigner-ownership prohibition under the Land Code; (b) loan agreements with criminal interest rates; (c) employment terms that contract out of mandatory labour protections; and (d) prenuptial provisions inconsistent with §1465. Once a court declares an act void under §150 the parties are restored to the position they would have occupied had the act never been made, subject to restitution under §391.
Why this matters in practice
For lawyers: void under section 150 is absolute — there is no time limit for raising it, any interested person may raise it, and it cannot be cured by ratification (section 172). Distinguish it from voidable acts, which are valid until set aside. Common triggers: agreements to suppress a public-offence prosecution; nominee land-holding by foreigners; contracts breaching a licence condition. For laypeople: some agreements are simply illegal and have no legal effect at all — courts will not enforce them.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil & Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment. Thai courts have applied it to agreements to withdraw criminal complaints, nominee land-holding by foreigners, agreements to circumvent statutory transfer bans, and contracts breaching sector-specific regulatory prohibitions.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8921/2559 (2016) ★ Landmark
An agreement to withdraw a prosecution for a non-compoundable public offence is contrary to public order and is void under section 150; it cannot be enforced even if the other party has performed their obligations.
The plaintiff had agreed in a memorandum to withdraw a criminal complaint against a public official in exchange for certain undertakings. The Court held that because the offence was a public offence not subject to private settlement, the part of the agreement requiring withdrawal of the complaint was contrary to public order and good morals and was therefore void under section 150 — even if the defendant had fully performed his side of the agreement, the void term could not be enforced against the plaintiff.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1179/2561 (2018)
A nominee arrangement by which a foreigner uses a Thai national to hold land on their behalf circumvents a statutory prohibition and is void under section 150.
The plaintiff, a foreign national, had arranged for the defendant to hold land on his behalf. The Court held that such a nominee arrangement by a foreigner to circumvent the statutory prohibition on foreign land ownership was contrary to law and therefore void under section 150.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5696/2558 (2015)
A transfer that expressly breaches a regulatory prohibition is void under section 150, allowing the administrator to recover the asset directly rather than through the fraudulent-transfer route under section 237.
A transfer of land by an insolvent insurance company to a related party was alleged to violate prohibitions in the Non-Life Insurance Act. The Court accepted the argument that if the transfer contravened an express statutory prohibition it would be void under section 150, enabling the administrator to seek recovery of the property rather than merely a fraudulent-transfer remedy under section 237.
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 a void act and a voidable act?
A void act (section 150) has no legal effect from the moment it is made. No one can ratify it and any interested party may raise it at any time. A voidable act is fully valid and binding until the party entitled to avoid it exercises that right within the statutory period; if not avoided, it becomes permanently valid.