Codesuser: /* Presumption of the debtor's liability for default */

2025-10-06T16:06:53Z

Presumption of the debtor's liability for default

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 6 October 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	The Thai drafters followed the Japanese concept regarding the remedies for non-performance (Japanese Arts.412 – 426). However, Art.412 was replaced with the German traditional [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 271.\|§ 271]] for the issue "Time for performance" and [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 284.\|§ 284]] for the issue "the debtor's default in performance". The traditional § 284 clearly requires the "Demand for performance" by the creditor as an essential requisite for the debtor's default in performance. At the same time, this provision ''<u>automatically allows to presume the debtor's liability (negligence) for default</u>'' together with the next Sec.205, which was adopted from the German traditional [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 285.\|§ 285]].		The Thai drafters followed the Japanese concept regarding the remedies for non-performance (Japanese Arts.412 – 426). However, Art.412 was replaced with the German traditional [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 271.\|§ 271]] for the issue "Time for performance" and [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 284.\|§ 284]] for the issue "the debtor's default in performance". The traditional § 284 clearly requires the "Demand for performance" by the creditor as an essential requisite for the debtor's default in performance. At the same time, this provision ''<u>automatically allows to presume the debtor's liability (negligence) for default</u>'' together with the next Sec.205, which was adopted from the German traditional [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 285.\|§ 285]].
	<p>This concept of Secs.204 and 205 apparantly shows that the Thai drafter decided for so-called "Civil law" tradition instead of the "Common law" concept. The main drafter of the Japanese Civil Code, Professor Hozumi, had originally intended to declare the same principle in the traditional Art.415. Unfortunately, the drafting commission decided to replace the 2nd sentence of the provision "''unless the debtor is not responsible for the cause of the non-performance''" with another sentence "''The same shall apply if the performance become impossible for any cause for which the debtor is responsible''" (see C-5 in [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/10_Non-~~performance_Part1_2025-09-27~~.pdf "The Thai Civil Law on Non-performance in a Comparative, Structural View"], P.14). As a result, the principle of presumption of the debtor's liability became almost unvisible in the Japanese provision. The Thai drafter must have recognized this conceptual weakness of the Japanese provision and decided to adopt the German §§ 284 and 285.		<p>This concept of Secs.204 and 205 apparantly shows that the Thai drafter decided for so-called "Civil law" tradition instead of the "Common law" concept. The main drafter of the Japanese Civil Code, Professor Hozumi, had originally intended to declare the same principle in the traditional Art.415. Unfortunately, the drafting commission decided to replace the 2nd sentence of the provision "''unless the debtor is not responsible for the cause of the non-performance''" with another sentence "''The same shall apply if the performance become impossible for any cause for which the debtor is responsible''" (see C-5 in [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/10_Non-performance_Part1.pdf "The Thai Civil Law on Non-performance in a Comparative, Structural View"], P.14). As a result, the principle of presumption of the debtor's liability became almost unvisible in the Japanese provision. The Thai drafter must have recognized this conceptual weakness of the Japanese provision and decided to adopt the German §§ 284 and 285.
	<p> The comparison between the German § 284 and the Thai Sec.204, however, shows a small difference; the 2nd sentence of the German provision was not adopted:		<p> The comparison between the German § 284 and the Thai Sec.204, however, shows a small difference; the 2nd sentence of the German provision was not adopted:
	<p>''Citation from'' the paper [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/11_Reconstruction.pdf "Reconstruction of Thai Arrangement of the Remedies for non-performance"] (P.8) – Apparently, Phraya Manava Rajasevi eliminated §284 Paragraph (1) Sentence 2 from the Thai article มาตรา 204. This sentence regarded the effect of “action for the performance” and other similar actions. Presumably, he decided to eliminate it because he had already planed to adopt [[1896ja Book3 Chapter01 Title02#Article 414.\|Art. 414]] of the Japanese code for the issue “Demand for enforcement of specific performance”. (end of citation). Please, see [[2468th Sec 0213\|Sec.213]]. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 16:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>''Citation from'' the paper [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/11_Reconstruction.pdf "Reconstruction of Thai Arrangement of the Remedies for non-performance"] (P.8) – Apparently, Phraya Manava Rajasevi eliminated §284 Paragraph (1) Sentence 2 from the Thai article มาตรา 204. This sentence regarded the effect of “action for the performance” and other similar actions. Presumably, he decided to eliminate it because he had already planed to adopt [[1896ja Book3 Chapter01 Title02#Article 414.\|Art. 414]] of the Japanese code for the issue “Demand for enforcement of specific performance”. (end of citation). Please, see [[2468th Sec 0213\|Sec.213]]. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 16:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Presumption of the debtor's liability for default */ new section

2025-10-06T16:04:26Z

Presumption of the debtor's liability for default: new section

New page

== Presumption of the debtor's liability for default ==

The Thai drafters followed the Japanese concept regarding the remedies for non-performance (Japanese Arts.412 – 426). However, Art.412 was replaced with the German traditional [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 271.|§ 271]] for the issue "Time for performance" and [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 284.|§ 284]] for the issue "the debtor's default in performance". The traditional § 284 clearly requires the "Demand for performance" by the creditor as an essential requisite for the debtor's default in performance. At the same time, this provision ''automatically allows to presume the debtor's liability (negligence) for default'' together with the next Sec.205, which was adopted from the German traditional [[1896de Book2 Chapter01 Title01#Section 285.|§ 285]].
This concept of Secs.204 and 205 apparantly shows that the Thai drafter decided for so-called "Civil law" tradition instead of the "Common law" concept. The main drafter of the Japanese Civil Code, Professor Hozumi, had originally intended to declare the same principle in the traditional Art.415. Unfortunately, the drafting commission decided to replace the 2nd sentence of the provision "''unless the debtor is not responsible for the cause of the non-performance''" with another sentence "''The same shall apply if the performance become impossible for any cause for which the debtor is responsible''" (see C-5 in [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/10_Non-performance_Part1_2025-09-27.pdf "The Thai Civil Law on Non-performance in a Comparative, Structural View"], P.14). As a result, the principle of presumption of the debtor's liability became almost unvisible in the Japanese provision. The Thai drafter must have recognized this conceptual weakness of the Japanese provision and decided to adopt the German §§ 284 and 285.
 The comparison between the German § 284 and the Thai Sec.204, however, shows a small difference; the 2nd sentence of the German provision was not adopted:
''Citation from'' the paper [https://openlegaltextbook.ddns.net/Resources/11_Reconstruction.pdf "Reconstruction of Thai Arrangement of the Remedies for non-performance"] (P.8) – Apparently, Phraya Manava Rajasevi eliminated §284 Paragraph (1) Sentence 2 from the Thai article มาตรา 204. This sentence regarded the effect of “action for the performance” and other similar actions. Presumably, he decided to eliminate it because he had already planed to adopt [[1896ja Book3 Chapter01 Title02#Article 414.|Art. 414]] of the Japanese code for the issue “Demand for enforcement of specific performance”. (end of citation). Please, see [[2468th Sec 0213|Sec.213]]. [[User:Codesuser|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser|talk]]) 16:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2468th Sec 0204 - Revision history

Codesuser: /* Presumption of the debtor's liability for default */

Codesuser: /* Presumption of the debtor's liability for default */ new section