Bangkok Legal Service

Mr. Somphon Wua Tong Kae (with two pigs, each named Tong Kae), each paying a portion of the debt owed to Mr. Kong Tae during the preceding period. Mr. Somphon’s son discovered his wife, Mrs. Kong Tae, at the market and paid the debt to Mrs. Kong Tae. However, he did not inform his father. Mrs. Kong Tae did not inform Mr. Kong Tae. While the pigs were in Mr. Kong Tae’s possession, they gave birth to one piglet. Two weeks passed. Mr. Somphon’s son notified Mr. Somphon of the debt payment, and Mr. Somphon returned the pigs. However, at that time, Mrs. Kong Tae was away on a trip to a different province for one week. Mr. Wei waited for Mr. Kaya to return before inquiring about the payment. During that time, another piglet was born. When Mrs. Kong Tae returned, Mr. Kong Tae became fully aware of the circumstances and returned the pigs. He then claimed to retain the piglets and the expenses incurred in caring for the pigs during Mr. Somphon’s possession. Specifically, Mr. Kong Tae’s right to claim against Mr. Somphon is [QUESTION].

The fact that Mr. Somphon had already paid the debt to Mr. Kong Tae and his wife, and that the pigs had paid the debt themselves, constitutes a possession of the pigs and piglets without any basis. The law dictates that Mr. Kong Tae has a duty to return the pigs and piglets to Mr. Somphon.

Civil and Commercial Code, Section 406 (1 point)

While Mr. Kong Tae received the cow, he believed that he still had a debt obligation to Mr. Somphon. The acceptance of the cow and pigs for two weeks was a voluntary acceptance. However, when Mr. Somphon informed him of the full debt payment and requested the return of the cow and pigs during the subsequent week, Mr. Kong Tae was in a fraudulent position, as defined in Section 2 of the Civil and Commercial Code (1 point). The calf was a natural product resulting during the first two weeks, when Mr. Kong Tae was in voluntary possession of the property. Therefore, Mr. Kong Tae has the right to retain the calf as a product arising from the cow, as stipulated in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 406, Paragraph 1 (2 points). The piglet was a natural product resulting during the subsequent week, which was the period when Mr. Kong Tae was in a fraudulent position. Therefore, Mr. Kong Tae has no right to retain the piglet in any way, as stipulated in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 415, Paragraph 1 (2 points).

Regarding the piglet, it was a cost incurred for the maintenance of the property, namely the sow. Mr. Kong Tae has the right to claim this expense from Mr. Somphon, as stipulated in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 416, Paragraph 1 (2 points), which is the beneficiary of the property still retaining the product. Therefore, he has no right to claim maintenance expenses for the product, as stipulated in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 416, Paragraph 2 (2 points). Since Mr. Kong Tae received the calf and it had already become a product, he has no right to claim the calf from Mr. Somphon (2 points).