Section 306 — Assignment of claim — written form
Statutory text (Thai original)
โดยมิได้อิดเอื้อน ท่านว่าจะยกข้อต่อสู้ที่มีต่อผู้โอนขึ้นต่อสู้ผู้รับโอนนั้นหาได้ไม่ แต่ถ้าเพื่อจะระงับหนี้นั้น ลูกหนี้ได้ใช้เงินให้แก่ผู้โอนไปไซร้ ลูกหนี้จะเรียกคืนเงินนั้นก็ได้ หรือถ้าเพื่อการเช่นกล่าวมานั้นลูกหนี้รับภาระเป็นหนี้อย่างใดอย่างหนึ่งขึ้นใหม่ต่อผู้โอน จะถือเสมือนหนึ่งว่าหนี้นั้นมิได้ก่อขึ้นเลยก็ได้ถ้าลูกหนี้เป็นแต่ได้รับคำบอกกล่าวการโอน ท่านว่าลูกหนี้มีข้อต่อสู้ผู้โอนก่อนเวลาที่ได้รับคำบอกกล่าวนั้นฉันใด ก็จะยกขึ้นเป็นข้อต่อสู้แก่ผู้รับโอนได้ฉันนั้น ถ้าลูกหนี้มีสิทธิเรียกร้องจากผู้โอน แต่สิทธินั้นยังไม่ถึงกำหนดในเวลาบอกกล่าวไซร้ ท่านว่าจะเอาสิทธิเรียกร้องนั้นมาหักกลบลบกันก็ได้ หากว่าสิทธินั้นจะได้ถึงกำหนดไม่ช้ากว่าเวลาถึงกำหนดแห่งสิทธิเรียกร้องอันได้โอนไปนั้น
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
English translation
The transfer of an obligation performable to a specific creditor is not valid unless it is made in writing. It can be set up against the debtor or third person only if feedback (/form/1-samuiforsale-contact-form.html?tmpl=component) / a notice thereof has been given to the debtor, or if the debtor has consented to the transfer. Such notice or consent be in writing. The debtor is discharged if he satisfies the transferor by way of payment or otherwise before he has received notice of, or has agreed to, the transfer.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 306 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
Lawyers: Both the assignment itself and any notice to the debtor must be in writing; oral assignment or oral notice is ineffective. Once proper notice is given, the debtor must pay the assignee and loses the right to pay the assignor. The debtor retains all defences existing before notice. Laypersons: If someone tells you that your debt has been transferred to a new company, insist on written proof of both the assignment and the notice — until you receive that, you are safe to pay the original creditor.
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. 3033/2550 (2007)
A notice of assignment under section 306 must sufficiently identify the specific debt transferred; a general blanket description covering a pool of debts does not satisfy the requirement.
The plaintiff claimed as assignee of a loan receivable from bank D. The written notice of assignment (exhibit J7) described the transferred debts only in general terms referencing a bundle of credit and security agreements without identifying the specific debt in question. The Court held the notice was insufficiently specific to satisfy section 306 and the assignment could not be enforced against the defendant.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4872/2550 (2007)
Once written assignment and written notice to the debtor are completed under section 306(1), the assignor loses all right to receive payment; any execution by the assignor's other creditors against that receivable must fail.
The defendant assigned its right to receive money under a court-approved settlement to company T, which then sent written notice of the assignment to the obligor. The Court confirmed the assignment was perfected under section 306(1): from that point the defendant (assignor) had no right to receive payment and the plaintiff (who sought to intercept the money by execution) had no basis to do so.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1840/2547 (2004)
A conditional notice of future-debt assignment is effective only when the specified condition (notation on each invoice) is fulfilled for each individual debt.
Company P notified the defendant of an assignment of trade receivables, including future debts, but conditioned notice on the assignor noting the transfer on each invoice. The Court held this was not a blanket notice of all future receivables but a case-by-case notice: each assignment would only be effective against the debtor once the specific invoice bearing the transfer notation was issued and delivered.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.