Section 904: Holder of a negotiable instrument, definition

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1385/2554 (2011)

   The drawer challenged the plaintiff's standing as holder, arguing that altering the cheque dates after they fell due avoided the instrument and extended prescription. The Supreme Court rejected that under Section 1007 paragraph one and not by construing Section 904: where the drawer alters the date and signs the alteration and the holder consents, the cheque is not avoided, it remains enforceable against the party who made the alteration, and it takes the altered date, which is not an extension of prescription contrary to Section 193/11. The Court did not decide how a holder is constituted under Section 904.

   Five cheques were endorsed by the second defendant and discounted to the plaintiff. After they fell due the drawer altered the date on each, signing every alteration, with the plaintiff as holder consenting. Payment was then stopped and the plaintiff sued. The drawer argued that the alteration avoided the cheques, that the plaintiff was therefore not a lawful holder, and that the alteration extended prescription. The Supreme Court held under Section 1007 paragraph one that a cheque altered by the very party liable on it remains valid against that party and takes the altered date, so the plaintiff's position as holder was unaffected, and that this is not an extension of prescription under Section 193/11. It added that a bare plea of prescription which does not state when time began to run or when it expired is not a clear defence under Civil Procedure Code Section 177 paragraph two, so no prescription issue arose. The Court did not construe Section 904 itself.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 141/2560 (2017)

   A holder who takes a cheque with knowledge that there is no underlying debt is not a good-faith holder and cannot defeat the drawer's defence.

   A person who knew the cheque had no underlying debt but took it from the original payee's spouse and then sued on it was not a good-faith holder under Section 904; the drawer's defence of no underlying debt was available against such a holder.

   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.