.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
6
Trump’s Tariffs: A Chaotic Dream within a Lost Era
The words Trump and reality in the same sentence that has to be a first -
45
Transgender Women's Altercation on Pattaya Beach Goes Viral Online - video
A bit of a push this one "Two blokes having a battle" -
2
Mukdahan Province
Hmmmm. Mukdahan is not my favorite. I would cross and do the Thakhek Loop in motorcycle. Enjoy. Or go to Ubon. Ubon is not bad… -
-
6
Trump’s Tariffs: A Chaotic Dream within a Lost Era
Oh my God! Trump didn't realise services make up 80% of the economy, but thank God RSD1 spotted this obscure fact, being smarter than all of us, including Donald Trump. This is excellent news. Will you now be called to the White House as economic advisor RSD1 to correct economic policy? Please update us how you get on in the White House. -
53
The 30+30+30 leasing contacts in Phuket is over
Yes, exactly. In this case, the court ruled that the so-called “automatic renewal” was actually an attempt to bypass the legal limit set by Thai law. That kind of clause is not valid, because it’s seen as a way to circumvent the law—specifically Section 540 of the Civil and Commercial Code, which limits leases to 30 years. This is something most civil law lawyers learn early on: certain rules fall under what we call public order. These are principles so important—like age limits, morality, or legality—that they can’t be waived or changed by private agreement. In other words, you can’t contract your way around them. For example, two children who are both 8 years old can’t legally marry, even if their parents sign a contract. It’s against public order. Or if someone makes a contract about the quality of cocaine, that contract can’t be enforced in court. Cocaine is illegal—so the subject matter itself makes the contract void. Now, if you read this Supreme Court decision carefully, you’ll see they didn’t void the original lease. That part was valid. What they voided was the automatic renewal. Even the damages were not void. The renewal clause was void because it tried to extend the lease beyond the 30-year limit by default, without needing a new agreement. That’s why it was declared void. Section 540 does allow a renewal, but it has to be done properly—not automatically, and not in a way that avoids the law’s intent. To be honest, I said something similar 10 or 15 years ago. I wasn’t joking. I never said “automatic renewal” was valid. What I said was this: trying to guarantee a 90-year lease upfront was outside a straightforward reading of the law. Thirty years is allowed. Another 30 years may be possible. But 90 years? That’s pushing it. That’s just basic legal interpretation. And yes, contrary to most people here, I understood and knew what is a reciprocal contract and decisions of the Supreme Court on that. Who knows that? The validations of 3 x 5 years leases based on that? I knew that. I do not wish to explain too much, it is complex in law.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now