Attempted Fraud

[stevenl]

I really think it is easy.

You promised him 30+30, but in the valid contract (that means the Thai, because in case of any dispute the Thai contract will have value, not the English) it says 30 years only.

However, in the English contract, that one without any value, you wrote 30+30.

So the buyer will think: he promised me 30+30, he wrote in the complete worthless contract 30+30, but in the only contract of any value he wrote 30. So he (being abrak) is screwing me.

I think what I have stated at least six times totally contradicts what you have said.

And that will surely convince the prospective buyer. Try to look at it from his perspective.

[Abrak]

How is the OP selling 60, 90 year leases (whatever) on Crown land that is somehow owned by a company which is owned by the old land owner.

Doesn't make any sense.

It certainly doesnt. It is impossible to sell 60 and 90 year leases. Assuming I am the Op I find it unimaginable that anywhere I have ever stated that I have ever sold a 60 or 90 year lease.

[Carib]

Abrak, I think you mean well, with whatever you are trying to prove, but you have a very confusing semi formal way of expressing yourself, which makes it more difficult than it really is.

[Abrak]

Abrak, I think you mean well, with whatever you are trying to prove, but you have a very confusing semi formal way of expressing yourself, which makes it more difficult than it really is.

Apologies we are getting nowhere. I hope Thaiwanderer comes back and answers my question on englishlease registration but other than that it is more productive I stop posting.

[thaiwanderer]

The purpose of registering two identical leases (Thai and English) is to go some way to satisfy the concern that the Thai lease does not include all that the English lease does.

In reality the prospective lessee would anyway want to ensure their own independent translation but if the two registered leases actually differed significantly (on the basis of 'poor translation') they could then at least point to the English as an inducement to enter the contract despite any precedence of the Thai.

The crux however is that the Thai contract is all that's required IF it contains all that is agreed but (apparently) here you have the Thai lease for the basic 30 years only and the unregistered private English agreement for all the extra promises.

Subject to the Land Office occasionally being overzealous (itself not insurmountable) why other than poor legal advice or 'other reasons' (neither of which would allay a prospective lessee's concerns) would you not want the Land Office to see the extra promises?

Just because a renewal is not a registerable interest - does not mean the contract containing it cannot be registered and thereby satisfy the later evidential burden that it has been agreed.

So your reason for not having the entire agreement (with all the extra promises you are so keen to best protect) in one Thai contract that is registered at the land office is.........?

[Abrak]

The purpose of registering two identical leases (Thai and English) is to go some way to satisfy the concern that the Thai lease does not include all that the English lease does.

In reality the prospective lessee would anyway want to ensure their own independent translation but if the two registered leases actually differed significantly (on the basis of 'poor translation') they could then at least point to the English as an inducement to enter the contract despite any precedence of the Thai.

I sincerely do not believe you state that based on any legal opinion. The only purpose then is to show that 'poor translation' has resulted in differences. There is absolutely no way that an english lease will take precedent over a Thai contract and the simple fact they are different and both registered at the Land Office will essentially render the extra benefits in the english contract null and void. As the two contracts are supposed to be identical it will be recognized that it was a mistake by the Land Office to register the extra benefits of the english lease.

The crux however is that the Thai contract is all that's required IF it contains all that is agreed but (apparently) here you have the Thai lease for the basic 30 years only and the unregistered private English agreement for all the extra promises.

Actually 30+30 is registered but registered 'extra promises' cannot be legally enforced by the Land Office and of course can be cancelled. Please understand that the maximum lease that is recognized at the Land Office is 30 years you can register a +30 but it is not enforceable.

Subject to the Land Office occasionally being overzealous (itself not insurmountable) why other than poor legal advice or 'other reasons' (neither of which would allay a prospective lessee's concerns) would you not want the Land Office to see the extra promises?

I think you miss the very essence of the English Lease Agreement protecting +30 +30 options. It is never meant to become public because it only becomes public in a civil law suit if +30 +30 options are not honored. The Landlord exposes himself to liabilities that are so large that it is inconceivable that he would have any incentive not to honor those options. He is prepared to expose himself to these liabilities as a gesture of good will that he will honor the options. If he transfers collateral he does not mean the owners to own it unless he acts in bad faith. He does not wish to be taxed on transfer as you will only expose transfer if he acts badly. He does not wish the liabilities to become public because the liabilities are dependent on him acting in bad faith. The point being that as he is showing his intention to act in good faith through large liabilities he is indicating that his future actions will not expose him to those liabilities. (If you dont understand this concept get someone to explain it to you - I genuinely do not believe that any lawyer advised you to register civil contract contingent liabilities at the Land Office. It simply makes them public and not even enforceable.)

Anyway I will virtually guarantee there is no case of an english lease contract taking precedence over a Thai language lease at the Land Office. I also believe that registering both will almost certainly render any additional benefits in the english language contract redundant. So there is no advantage to registering an english lease agreement and it could be materially disadvantageous.

Anyway this was meant to be constructive advice but choose to do as you please.

[Valentine]

It would be interesting to know if the 30 +30 has ever been put to the test. IMO a 30 year lease has less value, from a selling point, as time goes on as you can only transfer the remaining time on the existing lease. If another 30 years is required when selling an existing lease then it must be negotiated with the land owner.

One protection I would always recommend to a foreign buyer is that he has the building permit registered in his name which in turn will make it acceptable with the land office to register the house under his name. I believe the legal term for this is superfecies. However fragile this may be it could give the foreigner some bargaining power with the land owner in the event of lease negotiation.

You can go on all you like about a bunch of protective clauses in a lease such as the land owner, his heirs, or whoever he might sell the land to, having to honour the original lease agreement, goes back to my original point about it being put to the test in a court of law.

Another point is that the various land offices around the country tend to operate as their own personal fiefdom & what works in one province may not necessarily work in another. As for the courts I am unsure that they will feel obliged to follow any legal precedents that may be set in relation to lease cases. The courts are certainly prone to emotion as can be seen from Jimmy's case who was sentenced to a year in jail because he apparently did not show remorse due to not attending the funeral.

[DreamRider]

Abrak

I think it is pretty obvious that you did not try to "rip him off" and both the "client" and his/her lawyer should have been a tad more aware and of the wording of both contracts and realise that no contract, despite how well written, can circumvent Thai Law.

It appears that it is a mere attempt to clutch at straws for the "client" to have the deposit refunded, when this attempt fails; there will be another.

When I was selling some land in Phuket two years ago, in the period up to completion the Electricity Company came along and placed 6 posts just inside my border. The "client" tried to use this as an excuse claiming that "land had disappeared". It didn't wash, I got the electric company to remove the posts, the "client" failed to complete, I kept the deposit.

Stick to your guns!!

[LivinLOS]

So your reason for not having the entire agreement (with all the extra promises you are so keen to best protect) in one Thai contract that is registered at the land office is.........?

Anyway I will virtually guarantee there is no case of an english lease contract taking precedence over a Thai language lease at the Land Office. I also believe that registering both will almost certainly render any additional benefits in the english language contract redundant. So there is no advantage to registering an english lease agreement and it could be materially disadvantageous.

Hold on.. In previous statements your saying the leases are identical translations..

Then your giving reasons why a non Thai one shouldnt be registered because it wouldnt take precedence.. Meaning they are different..

You sure make explaining this complex. No wonder the buyer is nervous.

[stevenl]

Hold on.. In previous statements your saying the leases are identical translations..

No, that is the main reason I as a buyer would not trust him. English: 30 + 30, Thai: 30.

[LivinLOS]

Presenting an english contract to an english speaking customer, that he agreed on that basis, and then to have a Thai contract in a different wording.. Yeah I would call that fraudulent..

Sure he should have everything he signs translated before he signed it, but if I was told the english was a translation or equivalent of the other, well thats not true is it.

[thaiwanderer]

In this thread you post in a confused and misleading manner - though I won't be so rude as to suggest you get someone to explain it to you.

I have dealt with the point as to why two identical contracts (Thai and English) MAY be registered at the Land Office but you avoid the crux - Why not have all the promises in one Thai contract which is registered at the Land Office?

Exposing oneself to massive future liabilities is just to make big noise if its all easily defeatable before then anyway - so why can't all these promises you are so keen to protect be 'public' and attached to the title to put anyone who may also be offered such a great deal on the same land to be put on notice about?

I am struggling to find reasons not to do so unless scrutiny is unwlecome, uneforceable promises are being made right from the start or to frustrate the future evidential burden.