Talk:2468th Sec 0207 - Revision history

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-16T05:15:57Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 16 October 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:
	<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p style="margin-left:~~30px~~">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p style="margin-left:20px">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-16T05:14:40Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:14, 16 October 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	<p>The Thai drafter adopted the concept of the creditor's default from the German law, however, he could not introduce the § 324(II) because of [[2468th Sec 0370\|Sec.370]] modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_534.\|Art.534]]. Also regarding the debotor's responsibility, he could not adopt § 300(I) because he had eliminated [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_276.\|§ 276]] (definition of the debtor's responsibility).		<p>The Thai drafter adopted the concept of the creditor's default from the German law, however, he could not introduce the § 324(II) because of [[2468th Sec 0370\|Sec.370]] modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_534.\|Art.534]]. Also regarding the debotor's responsibility, he could not adopt § 300(I) because he had eliminated [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_276.\|§ 276]] (definition of the debtor's responsibility).
	<p>Presumably, the Thai drafter tried to introduce at least § 300(II), but in another manner in [[2468th Sec 0372\|Sec.372]] on the risk of loss in cases of the obligation "designated by species only":		<p>Presumably, the Thai drafter tried to introduce at least § 300(II), but in another manner in [[2468th Sec 0372\|Sec.372]] on the risk of loss in cases of the obligation "designated by species only":
	<ul><li>Sec.372(I): Principle of burden of risk of loss on the side of the debtor; modeled after the ~~Japanese~~ [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_536.\|Art.536(I)]];		<ul><li>Sec.372(I): Principle of burden of risk of loss on the side of the debtor; modeled after the Jp. [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_536.\|Art.536(I)]];
	<li>Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the ~~German~~ § 324(I);		<li>Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the Gr. § 324(I);
	<li>Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the ~~German~~ § 324(II).</ul>		<li>Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the Gr. § 324(II).</ul>
	<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p style="margin-left:30px">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p style="margin-left:30px">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-16T05:13:05Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:13, 16 October 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	<p>The Thai drafter adopted the concept of the creditor's default from the German law, however, he could not introduce the § 324(II) because of [[2468th Sec 0370\|Sec.370]] modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_534.\|Art.534]]. Also regarding the debotor's responsibility, he could not adopt § 300(I) because he had eliminated [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_276.\|§ 276]] (definition of the debtor's responsibility).		<p>The Thai drafter adopted the concept of the creditor's default from the German law, however, he could not introduce the § 324(II) because of [[2468th Sec 0370\|Sec.370]] modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_534.\|Art.534]]. Also regarding the debotor's responsibility, he could not adopt § 300(I) because he had eliminated [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_276.\|§ 276]] (definition of the debtor's responsibility).
	<p>Presumably, the Thai drafter tried to introduce at least § 300(II), but in another manner in [[2468th Sec 0372\|Sec.372]] on the risk of loss in cases of the obligation "designated by species only":		<p>Presumably, the Thai drafter tried to introduce at least § 300(II), but in another manner in [[2468th Sec 0372\|Sec.372]] on the risk of loss in cases of the obligation "designated by species only":
	<ul><li>1. Sec.372(I): Principle of burden of risk of loss on the side of the debtor; modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_536.\|Art.536(I)]];		<ul><li>Sec.372(I): Principle of burden of risk of loss on the side of the debtor; modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_536.\|Art.536(I)]];
	<li>2. Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the German § 324(I);		<li>Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the German § 324(I);
	<li>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).</ul>		<li>Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).</ul>
	<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p style="margin-left:30px">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p style="margin-left:30px">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-16T05:12:22Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:12, 16 October 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	<p>The Thai drafter adopted the concept of the creditor's default from the German law, however, he could not introduce the § 324(II) because of [[2468th Sec 0370\|Sec.370]] modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_534.\|Art.534]]. Also regarding the debotor's responsibility, he could not adopt § 300(I) because he had eliminated [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_276.\|§ 276]] (definition of the debtor's responsibility).		<p>The Thai drafter adopted the concept of the creditor's default from the German law, however, he could not introduce the § 324(II) because of [[2468th Sec 0370\|Sec.370]] modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_534.\|Art.534]]. Also regarding the debotor's responsibility, he could not adopt § 300(I) because he had eliminated [[1896de_Book2_Chapter01_Title01#Section_276.\|§ 276]] (definition of the debtor's responsibility).
	<p>Presumably, the Thai drafter tried to introduce at least § 300(II), but in another manner in [[2468th Sec 0372\|Sec.372]] on the risk of loss in cases of the obligation "designated by species only":		<p>Presumably, the Thai drafter tried to introduce at least § 300(II), but in another manner in [[2468th Sec 0372\|Sec.372]] on the risk of loss in cases of the obligation "designated by species only":
	<p>1. Sec.372(I): Principle of burden of risk of loss on the side of the debtor; modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_536.\|Art.536(I)]];		<ul><li>1. Sec.372(I): Principle of burden of risk of loss on the side of the debtor; modeled after the Japanese [[1896ja_Book3_Chapter02_Title01_Part02#Article_536.\|Art.536(I)]];
	<br>2. Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the German § 324(I);		<li>2. Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the German § 324(I);
	<br>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).		<li>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).</ul>
	<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p style="margin-left:30px">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p style="margin-left:30px">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-16T05:04:22Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:04, 16 October 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:
	<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p>'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p style="margin-left:30px">'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-14T10:00:34Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:00, 14 October 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:
	<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p>'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes ~~inable~~ to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p>'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes unable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-13T08:53:43Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:53, 13 October 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:
	<br>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).		<br>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).
	<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence would clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p>'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes inable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p>'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes inable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-13T08:53:05Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:53, 13 October 2025
Line 21:		Line 21:
	<br>2. Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the German § 324(I);		<br>2. Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the German § 324(I);
	<br>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).		<br>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).
	<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of ~~'''~~Sec.372(II) Sentence 3~~'''~~; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p>Sec.372(II), Sentence 3: The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes inable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p>'''Sec.372(II), Sentence 3:''' The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes inable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-13T08:52:12Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 13 October 2025
Line 21:		Line 21:
	<br>2. Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the German § 324(I);		<br>2. Sec.372(II) Sentence 1 and 2: Exception (A) in case of impossibility due to the creditor's fault; modeled after the German § 324(I);
	<br>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).		<br>3. Sec.372(II) Sentence 3: Exception (B) in case of impossibility during the creditor's default; modeled after the German § 324(II).
	<p>Formally, the Thai Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 and the traditional German § 300(II) pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai '''Sec.372(II)''' Sentence 3 and the traditional German '''§ 300(II)''' pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of '''Sec.372(II) Sentence 3'''; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p>Sec.372(II), Sentence 3: The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes inable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p>Sec.372(II), Sentence 3: The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes inable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Codesuser: /* Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss" */

2025-10-13T07:55:34Z

Effects of "Creditor's default" and the Principle of "Risk of loss"

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 13 October 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:
	<p>Formally, the Thai Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 and the traditional German § 300(II) pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".		<p>Formally, the Thai Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 and the traditional German § 300(II) pursue the same goal; namely the passage of the risk of loss to the creditor during his default in acceptance. However, there is a certain difference between them; the Thai provision treated cases of "Impossibility of performance" while the original German provision provided the passage of the risk of loss due to the debtor's "Inability to perform". This is a reason for the doubt about the efficiency of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3; it is quite difficult to imagine a case of "Impossibility" of performance "designated by species only".
	<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:		<p>In other words, it would be much more consequent if this sentence clearly mention also the debtor's "Inablity" as follows:
	<p>Sec.372(II), Sentence 3: The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the ~~debtor~~ becomes inable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.		<p>Sec.372(II), Sentence 3: The same rule applies if the performance due from one party becomes impossible ''<u>or the party becomes inable to perform his obligation</u>'', in consequence of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, at the time when the other party is in default to acceptance.
	<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)		<p>Then, there will be certain cases where the application of Sec.372(II) Sentence 3 could apply. [[User:Codesuser\|Codesuser]] ([[User talk:Codesuser\|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)