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. (citation suspended)

It was the circumstance in the traditional German Law. How about the situation in the Japanese law?

(citation resumed) The "Old Civil Code of Japan (1890)", on the other hand, had treated the issue “Tender of performance” (Arts. 474 – 478, Law on Properties) in the part of “Extinction of Obligation” just like the French Civil Code (Arts. 1257 – 1264). The “Revised Civil Code of Japan (1896)” followed this French arrangement (Arts. 492 and 493). However, the “Old Civil Code of Japan (1890)” had no provision on the issue “Creditor's default”. In the discussion of “Codes Investigatory Commission”, therefore, Prof. Hozumi proposed to insert a provision on this issue just after the provision on the issue “Debtor's default”.1 Apparently, this simple article was composed after the German provision §293; the both provisions required no responsibility of the creditor for his default. (citation suspended)

Apparently, any "responsibility" was required because the question of the "creditor's default" was not any issue of the creditor's liability, but rather a circumstance regarding the question of the debtor's liability.

(citation resumed) In Step 7, Phraya Manava Rajasevi simply put Segment 6 of the German code into the position which exactly corresponds to the location of Art. 413 of the Japanese code, and performed following four modifications: [...] (end of citation)

Such a circumstance was just the reason for insertion of the "Creditor's default" in the midmost of the provisions regarding the "Debtor's default". Fortunately, this "acrobtic" arrangement of the German provisions did not cause any system inconsistency issue. Codesuser (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)