Section 683

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4863/2537 (1994)

   Broad wording in a suretyship, to the effect that the surety is liable for the sum lent together with interest, fees, damages and enforcement costs whether the account balance is lower or higher than the figure stated, means only that the surety is jointly liable with the debtor within the amount of the facility guaranteed. It does not turn the guarantee into an open-ended one covering later increases. Where the surety signs a fresh guarantee on each occasion the facility is increased, and deposits a fixed deposit book as security each time, the intention is to secure that particular guarantee, and liability is confined to the limit stated in the guarantee then signed.

   The first defendant recorded an increase of the overdraft facility and of the security to 320,000 baht, and the third defendant signed a guarantee for it with a fixed deposit book as security. The Supreme Court held that the third defendant intended to guarantee the later overdraft facility of 320,000 baht. Although the guarantee said the surety guaranteed the borrower for the sum lent of 320,000 baht together with interest, fees, damages and enforcement costs, whether the account balance was lower or higher than the figure stated, and that the surety accepted liability as a joint debtor, that wording meant only that the surety was jointly liable within the amount of the facility. Depositing the fixed deposit book on each occasion was intended as security for that guarantee alone. The guarantee was therefore limited to 320,000 baht and did not extend automatically to later increases.

   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.