Loan Agreement Dispute Regarding Car Sale Transaction Liability
Mr. Thong, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Tim, the defendant, at Court No. a, alleging that Mr. Tim had borrowed 2 million baht from Mr. Thong via a written agreement, with Mr. Tim signing the loan agreement. Mr. Thai executed a debt guarantee agreement relating to the aforementioned agreement. Subsequently, Mr. Tim failed to pay the debt and Mr. Thai refused to pay. The court ordered Mr. Tim to pay the debt as per the loan agreement, including interest, and ordered Mr. Thai to be liable under the guarantee agreement. Mr. Tim denied his testimony regarding the existence of the loan agreement, as evidenced by the copy of the loan agreement appended to the complaint. In fact, the matter concerned a car sale transaction between Mr. Thong and Mr. Tim. Mr. Thong drafted the loan agreement in the manner of a loan arrangement with Mr. Thai. Mr. Thai testified as a guarantor, presenting a forged guarantee document. Subsequently, it appeared that Mr. Thong had not provided an affidavit within the stipulated timeframe. The court therefore decided to call witnesses to testify. Mr. Thong stated to the court that after Mr. Thong filed the lawsuit, Mr. Thai had sent a letter requesting payment of the debt in this case. Mr. Thai admitted to having sent the letter to Mr. Tim and Mr. Thai stated that he had no interest in pursuing witnesses. The court scheduled a hearing for the judgment on the following date: to determine how the court would rule on the case.
Despite the initial denial by Mr. Tim that he had executed the loan agreement as per the agreement appended to the complaint, it appeared from Mr. Tim’s subsequent testimony that the agreement with Mr. Thong was indeed the loan agreement as evidenced by the copy of the loan agreement appended to the complaint. Since Mr. Tim did not deny the validity of the loan agreement or that the details of the agreement were inaccurate, it was deemed that Mr. Tim had not genuinely denied the truth of the agreement made by Mr. Thong. Mr. Tim admitted that he had indeed executed the loan agreement. Mr. Thong was therefore not required to present evidence. The Civil Procedure Code, Section 84 (1) applies. Mr. Tim must therefore be liable to pay the debt owed to Mr. Thong as claimed. The fact that Mr. Thai admitted to sending a letter to Mr. Thong requesting payment of the debt in this case, in place of Mr. Tim, can be considered as an admission of facts in the proceedings that Mr. Thai was acting as Mr. Thong’s representative and was willing to pay the debt to Mr. Thong, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, Section 84 (1). Mr. Thong was therefore not required to present evidence in this regard. Mr. Thai, as the guarantor, must be liable for the debt as per the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 698. Therefore, the court must rule that Mr. Tim and Mr. Thai jointly pay the debt as claimed.
There are any instances where the initial court may have the power to transfer the case according to the relevant legislation?