Section 453: Sale, definition

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 17923/2557 (2014) ★ Landmark

   Courts characterise a contract by its substance and true intention of the parties, not by the name or label the parties assign to it.

   Although the contract was labelled a 'lease agreement', the Supreme Court held that its true substance — transferring rights and ownership of land rather than merely granting temporary use — made it a contract of sale under Section 453, not a lease under Section 537.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3763/2542 (1999)

   A seller need not own the property at the time of contracting; the obligation to transfer ownership arises at the time of performance.

   The seller was not the owner of the vehicle at the time the sale contract was made; the Supreme Court held this did not invalidate the contract because a seller is not required to own the property at the time of contracting.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4450/2542 (1999)

   Contract interpretation requires examining the true intention of the parties in conjunction with the actual words used in the document.

   In interpreting a sale contract for telephone equipment and installation, the Supreme Court held that the true intention of the parties — as evidenced by price allocation in the annexure — was to treat the equipment and labour as separate components, and the contract should be construed accordingly.

   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.