Liability for Unenforceable Gambling Debt and Check Guarantee
Article 9
Mr. Moo owed Mr. Gai the amount of 80,dd0 baht due to gambling on televised football. Mr. Moo issued a check of Bank Burapha Co., Ltd. (Public Limited Company), dated , with the words “Cash” in the payment field, and delivered it to Mr. Gai before the date. Mr. Gai needed the money urgently, so he delivered the check to Mr. Gai and also executed a sale and discount agreement with Mr. Nok, specifying “Accepting payment for the payer.”
Mr. Nok received the check, along with the agreement, and delivered them to Mr. Phab for vehicle repairs. On the back of the check, before delivery, it was stated “Accepting payment for the payer.”
When the check became due, Mr. Moo took the check to cash, but the bank refused to cash it because Mr. Moo had notified the Bank Burapha Co., Ltd. that payment should be suspended due to the debt arising from gambling, which Mr. Moo asserted was not a legally enforceable debt and therefore he was not liable for the check.
The court will consider whether Mr. Moo’s argument is valid, and whether Mr. Gai can seek liability from anyone to cover the debt. Why is this the case?
The check issued as payment for gambling is incomplete, according to the Code. However, Mr. Moo could not raise the issue of gambling debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 855, Paragraph 1, as a defense relating to the connected relationship between himself and Mr. Gai, against Mr. Moo, the issuer of the check. Therefore, Mr. Moo must be liable to pay the amount on the check according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 900, 916, 967, in conjunction with Section .
Mr. Nok signed his name on the back of the check as the payee, which constituted a guarantee for the payer. Mr. Nok is liable to Mr. Gai, the holder of the check, in the same way as Mr. Moo, the issuer. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 900, 921, 94.
Furthermore, since there was no use of the check for the payment of vehicle repair costs, Paragraph 1 (2 points), Mr. Gai has the right to compel Mr. Nok, the debtor, to assume liability to him in the amount of the debt, Paragraph 3. Mr. Gai also has another avenue of recourse (2 points).
Mr. Gai and Ms. Pla were not parties to the signature on the check, therefore they are not liable, according to the wording of the check, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 900. Although Mr. Gai held a sale and discount agreement with the check and a guarantee agreement, there was no execution of a claim transfer agreement under the contract, Mr. Gai was not yet in possession of the claim against Mr. Nok, and the act of transferring the claim to Mr. Gai, the recipient of the sale and discount agreement, did not allow him to compel Mr. Gai and Ms. Pla, the guarantor, to assume liability, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 306, Paragraph .
A contract for the rental of an aircraft from Thai Airways Company.