Loan Modification Dispute Regarding Lack of Written Evidence
The following year, Mr. Dam, lacking funds, applied to borrow additional money, amounting to 13,000 baht, agreeing to repay the principal sum together. For convenience, Mr. Dam requested Mr. Ang to amend the loan agreement, which was signed by Mr. Dam himself, to reflect the total sum of money. Mr. Ang, the same individual, crossed out the amount of 5,000 baht and wrote it anew, noting the amendment. Upon the due date for repayment, Mr. Ang demanded payment. Mr. Ang then filed a lawsuit seeking the repayment of 8,000 baht from Mr. Dam, pursuant to the loan agreement as follows: Mr. Dam was liable to the extent of the loan agreement made initially, answer. Mr. Dam was liable for 5,000 baht and for the subsequent 3,000 baht, Mr. Dam was not liable due to the lack of written evidence. Mr. Dam again, according to the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, Section 653, and the principle precedent 326/2517.
Mr. Chai entrusted his automobile to Mr. Chom’s vehicle depot on a regular basis, one day.