{"id":2414,"date":"2025-02-03T18:02:05","date_gmt":"2025-02-03T11:02:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/?page_id=2414"},"modified":"2025-02-03T18:02:07","modified_gmt":"2025-02-03T11:02:07","slug":"discrepancy-in-condo-size-leads-to-compensation-ruling","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/?page_id=2414","title":{"rendered":"Discrepancy in Condo Size Leads to Compensation Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-base-2-background-color has-background has-small-font-size\" style=\"border-radius:16px;padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--40);padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--40);padding-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--40);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--40);background-position:45% 0%;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:contain;\"><div class=\"wp-block-group__inner-container is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-67aea4fe wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center has-medium-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Discrepancy in Condo Size Leads to Compensation Ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image is-style-default wp-duotone-unset-1\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full is-resized\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"750\" height=\"500\" data-attachment-id=\"950\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/?attachment_id=950\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/16.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"1200,800\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-title=\"16\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/16.jpg?fit=750%2C500&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/16.jpg?resize=750%2C500&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-950\" style=\"width:500px\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/16.jpg?w=1200&amp;ssl=1 1200w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/16.jpg?resize=300%2C200&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/16.jpg?resize=1024%2C683&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/16.jpg?resize=768%2C512&amp;ssl=1 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 750px) 100vw, 750px\" \/><\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignfull has-contrast-color has-accent-5-background-color has-text-color has-background has-link-color wp-elements-1\" style=\"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--50);padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--50);padding-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--50);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--50)\"><div class=\"wp-block-group__inner-container is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-9c0fd174 wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-columns alignwide is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-f50a6616 wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow\" style=\"flex-basis:200%\">\n<ul style=\"line-height:1.75\" class=\"wp-block-list is-style-checkmark-list\">\n<li>In a significant case marked as Supreme Court Judgment No. 4566\/2018, a condominium buyer (the plaintiff) pursued legal action against the project owner (the defendant) for failing to deliver the agreed-upon space, resulting in a shortfall of approximately 6.72 square meters.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The plaintiff had entered into a purchase contract for a condominium unit with a specified area of around 73.38 square meters, for which they paid 1,805,000 baht. However, upon inspection post-transfer of ownership, it was discovered that the actual area fell short by 6.72 square meters.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A crucial aspect examined in the case was the contractual agreement regarding discrepancies in the condominium\u2019s area. The contract stipulated that if the space differed from the specified amount upon issuance of the condominium title deed, the area stated in the deed would be considered the contractually agreed-upon space, with no adjustment to the price. This clause was found to contravene the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1997.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court reasoned that the defendant, being a business entity experienced in constructing condominiums, would have been aware of the significance of the area in relation to the purchase price. Conversely, consumers like the plaintiff may not possess the means to verify the area independently and would rely on the information provided by the defendant.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Given the substantial discrepancy of 6.72 square meters, amounting to 9.1 percent of the total area, the plaintiff was burdened with paying a price that exceeded the actual area, resulting in financial loss. This disparity was deemed unfair, as it placed an undue burden on the plaintiff beyond reasonable expectations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Furthermore, since the defendant was responsible for the miscalculation and could have rectified it beforehand, the court concluded that the contractual terms granting the defendant such an advantage were unjust and unenforceable under the Act on Unfair Contract Terms, B.E. 2540.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consequently, the defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff by reducing the apartment price in accordance with the actual area and returning the amount paid for the deficient space. This amounted to 165,298.42 baht, with interest accruing at a rate of 7.5 percent per year from the date of filing until full payment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In summary, the ruling highlighted the importance of fair and transparent contractual practices, holding the defendant accountable for their failure to deliver the agreed-upon space and ensuring appropriate compensation for the plaintiff\u2019s financial losses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button has-custom-font-size is-style-fill has-medium-font-size\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link has-bg-1-color has-text-color has-background has-link-color wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/?page_id=2132\" style=\"background-color:#ac0505\"><strong><strong>CONTACT US<\/strong><\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Discrepancy in Condo Size Leads to Compensation Ruling<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":225336822,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_wpcom_ai_launchpad_about_page":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_gallery_page":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_contact_page":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_events_page":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_video_page":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_portfolio_piece":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2414","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/Ped7AC-CW","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2414","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/225336822"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2414"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2414\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2418,"href":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2414\/revisions\/2418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionassetlawfirm.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}