Talk:2468th Sec 0207

Insertion of "Creditor's default" into the segment of "Debtor's default"

The Thai drafter inserted the provisions Secs.207 – 212 on the issue "Creditor's default" into the middle of the segment about the issue "Debtor's default" (between Secs.203 – 206 and Secs.213 – 217). What was the reason for this strange arrangement? It happened due to the following circumstances:

Citation from B-7. Step 7 in "Reconstruction of Thai Arrangement of the Remedies for non-performance" (P.25) – In the traditional German theory of obligations, the creditor is entitled to the demand for the natural fulfillment of the obligation, but he owes the debtor no duty to accept the performance of the latter. Hence, there would be no “non-performance” even though the creditor refuses to accept the fulfillment of the obligation. Consequently, the issue “Creditor's default” (Segment 6) was clearly separated from the issue the debtor's “Non-performance” (Segment 4). The main subjects of Segment 6 on “Creditor's default” were rather debtor's duty to tender performance and reduction of debtor's liability during creditor's default. Codesuser (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)