PRESCRIPTION UNDER THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA LAW: WHEN TIME EXTENSION IS HELD AS NON-INVOCATION OF PRESCRIPTION

Abstract

A period of prescription in Thai law is prohibited by the Thai Civil and Commercial Code not to be reduced or extended. This concept is contrary to the limitation in case of international conventions and practice concerning carriage of goods by sea by which the parties to a contract of carriage of goods by sea may give their consent or agree to extend the time limit. With this concern, a Thai law, i.e. the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act B.E. 2534 (1991) follows the concept of unavailability of time-limit extension and provides that the person against whom a claim is made may give his consent in writing and bearing his signature to effect that no prescription shall be invoked against the claimant and that such written consent is enforceable. Even the Act states so, in some cases a sea carrier may issue a letter in which it grants time extension to a claimant and it is still arguable whether such letter is null and void because that its content is clearly against the provisions in the Thai Civil and Commercial Code. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Thailand has ruled in a judgment no. 2888/2549 that the time-extension letter issued by a carrier in this case is held as a letter not to invoke prescription against the claimant under the Thai Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and, as a result, an interpretation of letter in this case may lead to a new concept that a letter of time-limit extension is equivalent to a letter not to invoke prescription against the claimant. This article is written in order to propose the writer's views and opinions that a letter of time-limit extension is not the same as a letter not to invoke prescription against the claimant and that the Supreme Court's rule in the judgment no. 2888/2549 may not apply to every similar situation.