Off-Plan Property in Thailand: How to Sue a Developer Who Fails to Deliver
11 Views
Why a Developer Delay Is a Contract Claim, Not Bad Luck
An off-plan purchase from a developer is a reciprocal contract. The developer promises to build, complete and transfer; you promise to pay. When the developer does not perform, you are not obliged to keep performing either, and you are not limited to waiting politely for news.
This matters because developers routinely tell buyers that the contract only allows a refund in narrow circumstances, or that force majeure excuses everything. The courts have consistently refused that argument where the developer simply failed to build.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 2264/1985: more than a year passed from the contract to the buyer's termination and the developer still had not finished the house. The Court held the developer was the party in breach, the buyer was entitled to terminate, and on termination both sides had to be restored to their former position, so the developer had to return the 90,000 baht received with interest.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 9230/2008: the developer failed to build and transfer houses on time. The Court confirmed that because the agreement to sell is a reciprocal contract, the buyers were not required to pay the remaining instalments while the developer was not ready to perform, and that the claim carried the ten-year contractual limitation period rather than any shorter period.
The Developer's Brochure Is Part of Your Contract
Foreign buyers are often told that the marketing material was only an artist's impression. In Thailand that is wrong, and it is one of the strongest points a buyer has against a developer.
Section 6/1 of the Condominium Act requires a developer to keep copies of everything it advertises and provides that the advertising text and images form part of the agreement to sell. Where an advertisement conflicts with the contract, the conflict is resolved in the way most favourable to the buyer. Section 11 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act goes further for consumers generally: any advertisement, assurance or conduct that led you to understand the business operator would provide a facility is treated as part of the contract, and you may prove it by oral evidence even where the law requires the contract to be in writing.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 5352/2010: the developer's brochure depicted a large swimming pool and a shopping centre. The Court held the brochure was part of the agreement to sell, so the developer was bound to build them. Because the developer had not completed the shopping centre and had never built the pool, with no force majeure, the developer was in breach, the buyer could terminate, and the developer had to refund the money paid with interest from the date it was received.
Keep everything the developer published: the brochure, the scale model photographs, the floor plans, the website pages and the sales messages. A developer that quietly drops a facility has usually breached the contract, even if the building itself gets finished.
Step One: Serve Notice on the Developer
Section 387 of the Civil and Commercial Code is the gateway. Where a party fails to perform, the other party may serve notice fixing a reasonable period for performance, and if performance is not made within that period, may terminate the contract.
Serving it on the developer properly is cheap and decisive. The notice should identify the breach, demand completion and transfer within a stated reasonable period, and state that if the developer does not comply the notice operates as a termination. In Judgment No. 9230/2008 a notice giving the developer fifteen days and stating that it would operate as a termination was held to have validly terminated the contract when the developer ignored it.
Skipping this step is the single most common error. A buyer who simply stops paying and later sues may be met with the argument that the buyer, not the developer, repudiated the contract.
When You Do Not Have to Give the Developer Any Notice
There is an important exception. Where performance by the developer has become impossible through the developer's own act, you may terminate immediately under section 389 without any prior notice.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 6615/2010: the developer had already sold the two units to third parties before the buyer terminated. The Court held that the developer's obligation to transfer had become impossible by reason of the developer's own conduct, so the buyer could terminate under section 389 without first serving notice under section 387, and it was irrelevant whether the developer might have bought the units back.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 7691/2007: the developer sold the disputed unit to someone else while the agreement to sell was still in force. The developer was in breach, the buyer's termination was effective, and the developer had to refund the price paid with interest.
A land title search showing your unit or plot already registered away by the developer to a third party is therefore not the end of your claim. It is the fact that lets you terminate at once.
What You Recover from the Developer
Section 391 sets the consequence of terminating a developer contract: each party must restore the other to its former position, and money that must be returned carries interest from the time it was received.
So the developer must refund the deposit and every instalment, with interest running not from your demand or from the judgment, but from the date the developer took each payment. Over a stalled four-year developer project that interest is substantial.
A contract term that promises a refund without mentioning interest does not take that interest away. In Judgment No. 6615/2010 the developer argued that because the contract said only that it would return the sums paid, no interest was due. The Court rejected this: the contract contained no prohibition on claiming statutory interest, and elsewhere it expressly excluded interest in a force majeure situation, which showed the parties knew how to exclude interest when they meant to.
Even a project that both sides have quietly abandoned still produces a refund. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3837/2024 nothing had ever been built on the site, and the conduct of both parties showed neither intended the contract to continue. The Court treated it as a termination by implied mutual consent with neither party at fault, and the developer still had to return 8,662,500 baht with interest from receipt. Although the buyer had served no prior demand, filing the claim put the developer in default from the date of filing.
The Interest Rate Most Websites Still Get Wrong
Almost every article on developer refund claims quotes 7.5 percent per annum, and so do the older judgments cited above. That rate is out of date and relying on it will understate or overstate your claim.
Section 7 of the Civil and Commercial Code was amended in 2021. The default rate where no rate is fixed by the contract or by law is now 3 percent per annum, and it may be adjusted up or down by Royal Decree, with the Ministry of Finance reviewing it roughly every three years. Section 224 then provides that a money debt carries interest during the period of default at the section 7 rate plus 2 percent per annum, which is 5 percent at present, with no compounding during default, and preserves a higher rate where the creditor is entitled to one on some other lawful ground.
The practical point for a buyer is that the developer contract rate usually beats the statutory rate. Many developer contracts specify 15 percent per annum on refunds following the developer's breach. That rate is enforceable where the contract applies, so the claim should be pleaded under the contract first and the statutory rate only in the alternative. Note the distinction drawn in Supreme Court Judgment No. 4871/1996: a contractual rate of 15 percent applied to termination for breach, but where the parties terminated by agreement with nobody in breach and had fixed no rate for that situation, only the statutory rate applied.
You Have Ten Years, But Do Not Wait
A claim against a developer under an agreement to sell is a contractual claim with a ten-year limitation period under section 193/30, as confirmed in Judgment No. 9230/2008. Legally you have time. Commercially you usually do not.
A stalled developer is often a developer heading for insolvency, and a judgment against an empty company is worth nothing. Before filing, run a company search to see the paid-up capital, the directors and the filed accounts, and a title search on the land to see whether it is mortgaged to a bank or has already been transferred away. If assets are moving out of the developer, that is a separate and urgent problem with its own one-year deadline, and interim orders restraining further dealings should be sought at the same time as the claim.
The buyers who recover in full are almost always the ones who moved while the developer still had something to pay with.
The Standard Contract Form a Condominium Developer Must Use
For condominium units there is a further protection worth checking. Section 6/2 of the Condominium Act requires the agreement to sell between the developer and the buyer to follow the standard form prescribed by the Minister. Any part of the contract that departs from that prescribed form and is not favourable to the buyer has no effect.
This is a quiet but powerful provision against a developer. Clauses that a developer has inserted to cap its liability, to extend completion indefinitely, or to forfeit your payments on termination may simply be unenforceable, and a buyer who assumes the printed contract governs the position may be conceding a case that was already won.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Stopping payment without serving a notice under section 387, which lets the developer argue that you were the defaulting party.
Accepting that the brochure was only an impression, when the Condominium Act makes the developer's advertising part of the contract.
Claiming only the money paid and forgetting interest from the date each payment was received.
Using the outdated 7.5 percent rate instead of the contract rate or the current statutory rate.
Treating a resale of your unit by the developer as fatal, when it is the ground for immediate termination.
Negotiating with the developer for two years while its assets quietly disappear.
Frequently Asked Questions
The developer is late but says construction is continuing. Can I terminate?
Serve a notice under section 387 fixing a reasonable period for completion and transfer and stating that the notice operates as a termination if the developer fails to comply. If the developer then does not perform, the contract is terminated and the refund claim arises.
The facilities in the brochure were never built, but my unit is finished. Do I have a claim?
Yes. The advertising forms part of the agreement under section 6/1 of the Condominium Act, and a developer that fails to deliver an advertised pool or commercial building is in breach, as Judgment No. 5352/2010 shows.
The developer already sold my unit to someone else. Is my claim finished?
No. That makes the developer's performance impossible by its own act, so you may terminate immediately under section 389 with no prior notice and claim a full refund with interest.
How much interest can I claim from the developer?
Whatever rate the contract specifies for the developer's breach, commonly 15 percent per annum, and otherwise the statutory rate, currently 3 percent under section 7 and 5 percent during default under section 224. Interest runs from the date the developer received each payment.
How long do I have to sue the developer?
Ten years under section 193/30. But a developer in difficulty may have no assets left long before then, so the commercial deadline is far shorter than the legal one.
Speak to a Thai Property Litigation Lawyer
A refund claim against a developer is won on documents and sequence: the right notice, served at the right time, with the advertising and payment record preserved and the developer's assets checked before filing. Our litigation team reviews your agreement to sell against section 6/2 of the Condominium Act, serves the termination notice, applies for interim orders where the developer is disposing of assets, and claims the refund with contractual or statutory interest from the date of each payment. We act for foreign buyers of condominium units, villas and off-plan projects in Phuket and throughout Thailand. Contact us for an assessment while the developer still has assets to recover from.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of a claim against a developer depends on the wording of the agreement to sell, the advertising material and the payment record. Please consult a licensed Thai attorney before acting on any matter with legal consequences.
An off-plan purchase from a developer is a reciprocal contract. The developer promises to build, complete and transfer; you promise to pay. When the developer does not perform, you are not obliged to keep performing either, and you are not limited to waiting politely for news.
This matters because developers routinely tell buyers that the contract only allows a refund in narrow circumstances, or that force majeure excuses everything. The courts have consistently refused that argument where the developer simply failed to build.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 2264/1985: more than a year passed from the contract to the buyer's termination and the developer still had not finished the house. The Court held the developer was the party in breach, the buyer was entitled to terminate, and on termination both sides had to be restored to their former position, so the developer had to return the 90,000 baht received with interest.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 9230/2008: the developer failed to build and transfer houses on time. The Court confirmed that because the agreement to sell is a reciprocal contract, the buyers were not required to pay the remaining instalments while the developer was not ready to perform, and that the claim carried the ten-year contractual limitation period rather than any shorter period.
The Developer's Brochure Is Part of Your Contract
Foreign buyers are often told that the marketing material was only an artist's impression. In Thailand that is wrong, and it is one of the strongest points a buyer has against a developer.
Section 6/1 of the Condominium Act requires a developer to keep copies of everything it advertises and provides that the advertising text and images form part of the agreement to sell. Where an advertisement conflicts with the contract, the conflict is resolved in the way most favourable to the buyer. Section 11 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act goes further for consumers generally: any advertisement, assurance or conduct that led you to understand the business operator would provide a facility is treated as part of the contract, and you may prove it by oral evidence even where the law requires the contract to be in writing.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 5352/2010: the developer's brochure depicted a large swimming pool and a shopping centre. The Court held the brochure was part of the agreement to sell, so the developer was bound to build them. Because the developer had not completed the shopping centre and had never built the pool, with no force majeure, the developer was in breach, the buyer could terminate, and the developer had to refund the money paid with interest from the date it was received.
Keep everything the developer published: the brochure, the scale model photographs, the floor plans, the website pages and the sales messages. A developer that quietly drops a facility has usually breached the contract, even if the building itself gets finished.
Step One: Serve Notice on the Developer
Section 387 of the Civil and Commercial Code is the gateway. Where a party fails to perform, the other party may serve notice fixing a reasonable period for performance, and if performance is not made within that period, may terminate the contract.
Serving it on the developer properly is cheap and decisive. The notice should identify the breach, demand completion and transfer within a stated reasonable period, and state that if the developer does not comply the notice operates as a termination. In Judgment No. 9230/2008 a notice giving the developer fifteen days and stating that it would operate as a termination was held to have validly terminated the contract when the developer ignored it.
Skipping this step is the single most common error. A buyer who simply stops paying and later sues may be met with the argument that the buyer, not the developer, repudiated the contract.
When You Do Not Have to Give the Developer Any Notice
There is an important exception. Where performance by the developer has become impossible through the developer's own act, you may terminate immediately under section 389 without any prior notice.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 6615/2010: the developer had already sold the two units to third parties before the buyer terminated. The Court held that the developer's obligation to transfer had become impossible by reason of the developer's own conduct, so the buyer could terminate under section 389 without first serving notice under section 387, and it was irrelevant whether the developer might have bought the units back.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 7691/2007: the developer sold the disputed unit to someone else while the agreement to sell was still in force. The developer was in breach, the buyer's termination was effective, and the developer had to refund the price paid with interest.
A land title search showing your unit or plot already registered away by the developer to a third party is therefore not the end of your claim. It is the fact that lets you terminate at once.
What You Recover from the Developer
Section 391 sets the consequence of terminating a developer contract: each party must restore the other to its former position, and money that must be returned carries interest from the time it was received.
So the developer must refund the deposit and every instalment, with interest running not from your demand or from the judgment, but from the date the developer took each payment. Over a stalled four-year developer project that interest is substantial.
A contract term that promises a refund without mentioning interest does not take that interest away. In Judgment No. 6615/2010 the developer argued that because the contract said only that it would return the sums paid, no interest was due. The Court rejected this: the contract contained no prohibition on claiming statutory interest, and elsewhere it expressly excluded interest in a force majeure situation, which showed the parties knew how to exclude interest when they meant to.
Even a project that both sides have quietly abandoned still produces a refund. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3837/2024 nothing had ever been built on the site, and the conduct of both parties showed neither intended the contract to continue. The Court treated it as a termination by implied mutual consent with neither party at fault, and the developer still had to return 8,662,500 baht with interest from receipt. Although the buyer had served no prior demand, filing the claim put the developer in default from the date of filing.
The Interest Rate Most Websites Still Get Wrong
Almost every article on developer refund claims quotes 7.5 percent per annum, and so do the older judgments cited above. That rate is out of date and relying on it will understate or overstate your claim.
Section 7 of the Civil and Commercial Code was amended in 2021. The default rate where no rate is fixed by the contract or by law is now 3 percent per annum, and it may be adjusted up or down by Royal Decree, with the Ministry of Finance reviewing it roughly every three years. Section 224 then provides that a money debt carries interest during the period of default at the section 7 rate plus 2 percent per annum, which is 5 percent at present, with no compounding during default, and preserves a higher rate where the creditor is entitled to one on some other lawful ground.
The practical point for a buyer is that the developer contract rate usually beats the statutory rate. Many developer contracts specify 15 percent per annum on refunds following the developer's breach. That rate is enforceable where the contract applies, so the claim should be pleaded under the contract first and the statutory rate only in the alternative. Note the distinction drawn in Supreme Court Judgment No. 4871/1996: a contractual rate of 15 percent applied to termination for breach, but where the parties terminated by agreement with nobody in breach and had fixed no rate for that situation, only the statutory rate applied.
You Have Ten Years, But Do Not Wait
A claim against a developer under an agreement to sell is a contractual claim with a ten-year limitation period under section 193/30, as confirmed in Judgment No. 9230/2008. Legally you have time. Commercially you usually do not.
A stalled developer is often a developer heading for insolvency, and a judgment against an empty company is worth nothing. Before filing, run a company search to see the paid-up capital, the directors and the filed accounts, and a title search on the land to see whether it is mortgaged to a bank or has already been transferred away. If assets are moving out of the developer, that is a separate and urgent problem with its own one-year deadline, and interim orders restraining further dealings should be sought at the same time as the claim.
The buyers who recover in full are almost always the ones who moved while the developer still had something to pay with.
The Standard Contract Form a Condominium Developer Must Use
For condominium units there is a further protection worth checking. Section 6/2 of the Condominium Act requires the agreement to sell between the developer and the buyer to follow the standard form prescribed by the Minister. Any part of the contract that departs from that prescribed form and is not favourable to the buyer has no effect.
This is a quiet but powerful provision against a developer. Clauses that a developer has inserted to cap its liability, to extend completion indefinitely, or to forfeit your payments on termination may simply be unenforceable, and a buyer who assumes the printed contract governs the position may be conceding a case that was already won.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Stopping payment without serving a notice under section 387, which lets the developer argue that you were the defaulting party.
Accepting that the brochure was only an impression, when the Condominium Act makes the developer's advertising part of the contract.
Claiming only the money paid and forgetting interest from the date each payment was received.
Using the outdated 7.5 percent rate instead of the contract rate or the current statutory rate.
Treating a resale of your unit by the developer as fatal, when it is the ground for immediate termination.
Negotiating with the developer for two years while its assets quietly disappear.
Frequently Asked Questions
The developer is late but says construction is continuing. Can I terminate?
Serve a notice under section 387 fixing a reasonable period for completion and transfer and stating that the notice operates as a termination if the developer fails to comply. If the developer then does not perform, the contract is terminated and the refund claim arises.
The facilities in the brochure were never built, but my unit is finished. Do I have a claim?
Yes. The advertising forms part of the agreement under section 6/1 of the Condominium Act, and a developer that fails to deliver an advertised pool or commercial building is in breach, as Judgment No. 5352/2010 shows.
The developer already sold my unit to someone else. Is my claim finished?
No. That makes the developer's performance impossible by its own act, so you may terminate immediately under section 389 with no prior notice and claim a full refund with interest.
How much interest can I claim from the developer?
Whatever rate the contract specifies for the developer's breach, commonly 15 percent per annum, and otherwise the statutory rate, currently 3 percent under section 7 and 5 percent during default under section 224. Interest runs from the date the developer received each payment.
How long do I have to sue the developer?
Ten years under section 193/30. But a developer in difficulty may have no assets left long before then, so the commercial deadline is far shorter than the legal one.
Speak to a Thai Property Litigation Lawyer
A refund claim against a developer is won on documents and sequence: the right notice, served at the right time, with the advertising and payment record preserved and the developer's assets checked before filing. Our litigation team reviews your agreement to sell against section 6/2 of the Condominium Act, serves the termination notice, applies for interim orders where the developer is disposing of assets, and claims the refund with contractual or statutory interest from the date of each payment. We act for foreign buyers of condominium units, villas and off-plan projects in Phuket and throughout Thailand. Contact us for an assessment while the developer still has assets to recover from.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of a claim against a developer depends on the wording of the agreement to sell, the advertising material and the payment record. Please consult a licensed Thai attorney before acting on any matter with legal consequences.
Related Content
If a dispute in Thailand cannot be settled, it ends up in court — and for anyone unfamiliar with the Thai system, the process can feel opaque and slow. How does a lawsuit actually work? Which court hears it? And realistically, how many months or years will it take from filing to a final, enforceable judgment? This guide walks through the Thai civil court system tier by tier, explains each stage of a case from the first document to enforcement, and gives honest timelines based on the recent reforms designed to speed proceedings up. It is written with foreigners in mind, since cross-border evidence and foreign judgments add their own complications.
4 ก.ค. 2026
Business partnerships in Thailand often break down long after the company was registered, and by then the paperwork rarely favours the person who was excluded. A foreign investor discovers the Thai director has transferred a company asset. A minority shareholder is kept out of meetings and never sees the accounts. A board resolution appears that was never actually voted on. Thai company law gives shareholders real remedies in these situations, but those remedies are narrower than most people assume, and several are lost within weeks. This guide explains what directors owe the company, what a shareholder can and cannot sue for, how to challenge an improper resolution, and what to do when a company becomes deadlocked.
1 ส.ค. 2026
Thailand has a court designed specifically for employment disputes, and it works very differently from the ordinary civil courts. There are no filing fees. Judges include representatives of employers and employees. Mediation is built into the process. And a dismissed employee can ask for something the Labour Protection Act does not provide: reinstatement, or compensation over and above statutory severance, on the basis that the dismissal was simply unfair. For employers, the same system means that a dismissal which followed every procedural rule can still be found unlawful if there was no adequate reason for it. This guide explains how unfair dismissal claims work and how the Labour Court decides them.
17 ส.ค. 2026
