Golden Teak Case Study

The question at hand concerns whether or not the company named Golden Teak is entitled to the recovery of two wagons of teak. In this matter, it mainly governs the dispute between The Golden Teak company and Mr. Sucharit over two wagons of teak. There are legal principles and provisions of Thai Civil and Commercial Codes (TCCC) to be considered along with the provided facts.
Teak is classified as movable property under section 140 stating that movable property denotes things1 other than immovable property2. It includes rights connected therewith.
From the facts, an employee of the Golden Teak company in charge of delivery paperwork removed the label from the load, replaced them with the false ones and also faked the consignment notes. Without permission of the Golden teak company, the employee sold and delivered two wagons of teak to a teak merchant in Bangkok amounted to 2 million baht. In this case, the employee of the Golden Teak company is not the real owner, and he has not been

Sucharit. As to the facts, the two wagons of teak sold to Mr. Sucharit by the teak merchant derived from the Golden Teak company’s employee who committing fraud and even selling and delivering without the permission of the company. In short, the two wagons of teak are acquired through offence committed by the company’s employee. The property acquired through offence is the property that a person (this case means the employee of the company) deprives from the owner without the voluntary basis. Nonetheless, Mr. Sucharit bought the two wagons of teak, and he was unaware of the fraud. Clearly, it shows that Mr. Sucharit acquired the two wagons of teak in good faith. Therefore, Mr. Sucharit will be protected by the principle of good faith, which is the general