Educational Information Only — Not Legal Advice

    This site provides educational information only and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified Thai lawyer for personalized guidance. Laws may change. Full DisclaimerPrivacy Policy

    Skip to main content
    Last reviewed: by Anglo Siam Law Editorial Team
    Share:

    Educational Information Only

    The content on this page is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique. For matters involving investigation, arrest, litigation, or formal proceedings, consult a qualified legal professional.

    Back to Supreme Court Cases
    Commercial & Contract

    Force Majeure — Scope of Section 219 CCC After the Pandemic

    Performance-impossibility Claimant v Counterparty

    Updated:
    Supreme Court
    Commercial & Contract
    B.E. 2565 (2022)

    Composite summary — not a single reported case. This entry distils a settled line of Thai Supreme Court (Dika / ฎีกา) authority for legal education. It is not a transcript of one reported judgment, and the heading is not a citable case number. Do not cite it as specific case law — consult a Thai-qualified lawyer for the authoritative Dika number and current application.

    Facts

    Following the COVID-19 pandemic and related government orders (lockdowns, closure orders, border restrictions), parties to leases, supply contracts, construction contracts, event contracts, and tourism contracts invoked force majeure under Section 219 CCC or contractual force-majeure clauses to suspend or terminate obligations.

    Holding

    The Supreme Court has confirmed the long-standing test: force majeure must be an event (i) extraordinary and irresistible, (ii) external to the obligor, (iii) not reasonably foreseeable at contract formation, and (iv) actually causative of impossibility (not mere hardship). Government closure orders may qualify for the period and scope of the order. Economic difficulty alone does not qualify. Contractual force-majeure clauses can expand or contract the statutory test and are interpreted on their terms.

    Reasoning

    Section 219 reflects the principle that no one is bound to do the impossible. But contracts are not voided by mere inconvenience. The court distinguishes legal impossibility (clear) from economic hardship (not covered absent specific clause).

    Significance

    Defines the scope of the most important escape doctrine in Thai contract law. Highly relevant to long-term commercial contracts after recent global shocks.

    Practical Takeaway

    New contracts should include a tailored force-majeure clause specifying notice requirements, suspension vs termination, and the treatment of partial performance and advance payments. Do not rely on Section 219 alone.

    Cited Statutes

    • Civil and Commercial Code, Sections 8, 217, 219, 372

    This entry summarises a representative line of authority from the Thai Supreme Court (ฎีกา). It is intended for general legal education only and is not a substitute for advice from a Thai-qualified lawyer. Individual Dika case numbers are being verified against primary sources; until then these entries are presented as composite doctrinal summaries.

    Professional Legal Assistance

    When a matter involves investigation, arrest, detention, litigation, or regulatory action, professional legal representation becomes essential.

    Anglo Siam Legal provides experienced legal services across Thailand for both Thai nationals and foreigners.

    feedback.wasThisHelpful