Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 9 - The Fundamental Misconception in the Drafting of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code of 1925

  • from Part II - Foreign Influence and the Reform Period
  • Edited by Andrew Harding, National University of Singapore, Munin Pongsapan
  • Book:
    Thai Legal History
    Published online:
    28 May 2021
    Print publication:
    17 June 2021, pp 122-137

  • Summary

    The work of codification of civil and commercial law, which began in 1908 under the direction of French draftsmen, produced the desired result in 1925 only after Phraya Manavarajasevi (Plod na Songkhla) became involved. Plod was instrumental in replacing the French Civil Code of 1804 with the German Civil Code of 1900 (“BGB”) as the principal model and introducing the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 (“JCC”) and a copying method which he referred to as the ‘Japanese method’ to the new Thai-dominated drafting committee. The JCC and the ‘Japanese method’ were chosen owing to Plod’s conviction that the Japanese had established their civil code by copying the BGB. In reality, the JCC was influenced by a variety of foreign laws, including German and French law. The drafting committee’s lack of knowledge about the rules and concepts they borrowed and the method they adopted led to difficulties in interpreting the rules and concepts in question. This chapter will explore Plod’s fundamental misconception in the drafting of the TCCC and its consequences with a particular focus on the principle of fault in breach of contract.