Installment Payment Breach of Contract Land Transfer Claim
Exhibit 1: Plaintiff’s Claim
The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the attached copy of the Heng Contract, and as stipulated within the contract, the Buyer, Defendant, agreed to pay 1,000,000 Baht upon the execution of the contract, 100,000 Baht on the execution date, and the remaining balance within one year. Due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the outstanding balance as stipulated, the Plaintiff requests the Court to compel the Defendant to transfer the land for the construction of a multi-unit building. Prior to the execution of the contract, the Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that the Defendant would pay the price in installments. Upon the arrival of prospective customers to reserve the units and the payment of the booking fee to the Defendant, and due to the lack of further customer reservations, the Defendant failed to pay the remaining price. The Defendant did not breach the contract. The following questions arise regarding whether the Defendant is permitted to present testimonial evidence as a defense, and if so, why:
A. In arguing the Heng Contract, it appears that this contract was created in two copies, one with the Plaintiff and one with the Defendant. The copy held by the Plaintiff was lost without knowledge of the cause, and the Plaintiff requests the Court to issue a summons for the copy held by the Defendant.
B. The Defendant alleges that it provided the original Heng Contract to the investigating officer in one criminal case and therefore cannot produce the original. Should the Defendant be permitted to offer the copy of the Heng Contract attached to the complaint as evidence? What should be done in response?
The Heng Contract, a contract of sale and purchase, stipulates that the parties agreed to execute the contract in writing and to pay a deposit or partial payment, which constitutes a binding agreement. In the case of legal compulsion, evidence must be presented according to the Civil Procedure Code, Section 94, which prohibits parties from presenting testimonial evidence to modify the terms of the contract. The presentation of testimonial evidence by the Defendant constitutes a modification of the terms of the contract relating to the remaining price payment schedule, and therefore is prohibited under the relevant provisions.
Any reference to documentary evidence must refer to the original document, which must be accepted.
B. Document loss or destruction due to force majeure or inability to present the document in court. The Civil Procedure Code, Section 93, provides for this exception. In this case, although one copy of the contract document may be lost, another copy remains in the Defendant’s possession. The Defendant’s assertion that there were two copies and providing the original to the investigating officer in one case does not indicate whether the document was presented to the court. Therefore, the exception under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 93(2) does not apply.
The Plaintiff must request the Court to issue a summons for the original document. The Civil Procedure Code, Section 123, stipulates that the investigating officer must certify the authenticity of the document, or if the investigating officer is unable to provide a certified copy for any reason, the Plaintiff may obtain the Heng Contract held by the Plaintiff.