Section 165: Limits of duress: lawful threats and reverential fear

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6476/2547 (2004)

   The words used in the prescription provisions changed when the Code was revised. A state enterprise established to produce, supply and sell piped water, and to carry on other business connected with waterworks, is NOT a merchant in the narrower sense of the word used in the FORMER section 165(1). It is a trader within the broader expression used in section 193/34(1), which replaced that wording, and its claims fall to be treated accordingly for prescription purposes. Note on placement: the provision construed is the FORMER section 165. The section 165 now in force is a different provision, defining the duress that makes a declaration of intention voidable.

   The plaintiff was a state enterprise established under the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority Act B.E. 2510, section 6 of which gives it the objects of producing, supplying and selling piped water in Bangkok, Nonthaburi and Samut Prakan, and of carrying on other business connected with or beneficial to waterworks. The Supreme Court held that it therefore has the object of selling piped water and of carrying on business connected with waterworks. The expression trader in section 193/34(1) is a change of wording from the expression used in the former section 165(1), and although the plaintiff is not a merchant in that narrower sense it is a trader within section 193/34(1).

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.