Section 164: Duress as a ground for voidance
Statutory text (Thai original)
การแสดงเจตนาเพราะถูกข่มขู่เป็นโมฆียะการข่มขู่ที่จะทำให้การใดตกเป็นโมฆียะนั้น จะต้องเป็นการข่มขู่ที่จะให้เกิดภัยอันใกล้จะถึงและร้ายแรงถึงขนาดที่จะจูงใจให้ผู้ถูกข่มขู่มีมูลต้องกลัว ซึ่งถ้ามิได้มีการข่มขู่เช่นนั้น การนั้นก็คงจะมิได้กระทำขึ้น
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
English translation
A declaration of intention is voidable if made under duress. Duress, in order to make an act voidable, must be imminent and so severe that makes him fear and without it, the act would not have been made.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 164 is part of Book 1 (General Principles) 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 party claiming duress must prove both imminence and severity of the threat, and that the threat actually induced the act. For laypersons: if you signed a contract because someone threatened serious and immediate harm, you may be able to have it set aside, but you must act promptly.
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. 9277/2547 (2004)
Where a defendant registered a trade mark, and so disputed the plaintiff's rights in it, while the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2474 was in force, an action to cancel that registration is governed by the general ten-year prescription in the FORMER section 164, together with section 41(1) of the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2474, those being the provisions in force when the plaintiff's rights were disputed. The claimant need not sue within the five years from the registrar's order that section 67 of the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2534 would require. Note on placement: the provision applied is the FORMER section 164, which contained the general prescription rule. The section 164 now in force is a different provision, under which a declaration of intention made under duress is voidable.
The plaintiffs owned the trade marks written in Thai, Chinese and English as Toh Kang and Tang Toh Kang. The first defendant had registered a trade mark disputing their rights while the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2474 was still in force. The Supreme Court held that an action to cancel that registration was therefore subject to the general ten-year prescription under the former section 164, read with section 41(1) of the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2474, which were the provisions in force when the plaintiffs' rights were disputed, and that the plaintiffs did not have to bring the action within the five years from the registrar's order for registration prescribed by section 67 of the Trade Mark Act B.E. 2534.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 433 Supreme Court decisions (1952 to 2008)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 2624/2551 (2008)
- Decision 5565/2548 (2005)
- Decision 1962/2548 (2005)
- Decision 9277/2547 (2004)
- Decision 3846/2546 (2003)
- Decision 4312/2545 (2002)
- Decision 6082/2544 (2001)
- Decision 918/2544 (2001)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Most often cited alongside
- Section 165 86
- Section 193/30 53
- Section 448 25
- Section 169 20
- Section 166 18
- Section 224 16
Sections that appear in the same judgments as this one most often. The figure is the number of decisions.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
What must be proven for duress to make a contract voidable under Section 164?
Three elements must be shown: (1) a threat was made, (2) the threat involved imminent and serious harm, and (3) the threat was severe enough to cause a reasonable person to fear and to act as a result. The threatened harm must not already be past.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Civil and Commercial Code, s. 164 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Civil and Commercial Code (Thailand), s. 164. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-civil-code/section-164/ (accessed 28 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.พ.พ. มาตรา 164 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-civil-code/section-164/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-civil-code/section-164/"><p>A declaration of intention is voidable if made under duress. Duress, in order to make an act voidable, must be imminent and so severe that makes him fear and without it, the act would not have been made.</p><footer>Civil and Commercial Code, s. 164 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-civil-code/section-164/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.