Missing the sixty days frees only part
Where a creditor gives notice more than sixty days after the debtor's default, guarantors commonly assume they are released altogether. Several 2562 judgments say otherwise, and the difference lies in separating two kinds of obligation.
Phenhnung Thabthimthong
Partner · YACT Association
Published 6 August 2026 · Updated 14 August 2026
Wording that releases only part
Section 686 of the Civil and Commercial Code, as amended by the Civil and Commercial Code Amendment Act (No. 20) B.E. 2557 (2014), requires the creditor to give written notice to the guarantor, and provides that if no notice is given within sixty days of the debtor's default the guarantor is released from interest and damages, together with the charges that are accessories to the obligation, arising after that period. The wording lists what falls away; it does not say the guarantor is released from the debt.
The principal obligation is not on that list
Judgment 220/2562 concerned a hire purchase of a vehicle. The debtor defaulted in May 2558 and the creditor gave the guarantor notice in February 2559, far beyond sixty days. The Court held the guarantor released from interest and damages arising after the period, but that the obligation to return the vehicle, and to pay its value if it could not be returned, was the principal obligation, from which the guarantor was not released.
The line between principal and accessory
In the same case the Court treated loss-of-use as an accessory, so the guarantor was released only from the portion arising after the sixty days. The result is three layers in one case: a principal obligation not released at all; accessories released only so far as they arose after the period; and accessories arising before it, which remain. The calculation therefore has to be broken down by the date each item arose.
Late notice does not remove the right to sue
Judgment 5788/2562 states plainly that once the creditor has sent notice and termination to the guarantor, it has standing to sue, even where that notice came after the sixty days from the debtor's default. Missing the period therefore affects the extent of liability, not the right to bring the action. A guarantor defending on standing alone risks missing the point that actually works.
Contracts made before the amendment
Judgments 5789/2562 and 5788/2562 draw two distinctions. For guarantees made before Amendment Act No. 20 came into force, and since that Act made no separate provision for section 681/1, a clause making the guarantor liable as a joint debtor remains enforceable. Section 686 as amended, however, applies from the Act's commencement under its section 19. The date of the contract and the date of the debtor's default therefore have to be looked at separately.
Before the amendment the result was the opposite
Under the former section 686, judgment 3493/2525 held that from the moment the debtor defaulted the creditor was entitled to call on the guarantor, and that the guarantor was not released even without having received a demand. The 2557 amendment did change that, but only so far as the new wording says — interest, damages, and accessories arising after the period.
AUTHORITY
The judgments this rests on
Supreme Court judgment 220/2562
Where notice came after sixty days the guarantor was released from interest and damages arising later, and from loss-of-use as an accessory, but not from returning the hire-purchased vehicle or paying its value, that being the principal obligation.
Supreme Court judgment 5788/2562
Even where notice came after the sixty days, once the creditor had sent notice and termination it had standing to sue the guarantor.
Supreme Court judgment 5789/2562
For a guarantee made before Amendment Act No. 20 B.E. 2557 came into force a joint-debtor clause remains enforceable, while the amended section 686 applies from the Act's commencement under its section 19.
Supreme Court judgment 3493/2525
Under the former section 686, on the debtor's default the creditor could call on the guarantor from that moment, and the guarantor was not released even without receiving a demand.
QUESTIONS
Questions this raises
The notice was late. How should a guarantor respond?
The point that works is the extent of liability rather than standing, since judgment 5788/2562 confirms the creditor may still sue. What to do is separate the claim into principal obligation and accessories and date each item, because the second paragraph of section 686 releases only accessories arising after the sixty days.
The notice was sent but the guarantor never collected it.
Judgment 220/2562 considered a clause by which the guarantor agreed that a letter sent to the address given in the contract counted as duly served whether or not it reached them, and held that even where the post returned it uncollected, service was good. The wording of the service clause is therefore something both sides should read before signing.
LAW
The legislation
- Civil and Commercial Code, section 686
- Civil and Commercial Code, section 681/1
- Civil and Commercial Code Amendment Act (No. 20) B.E. 2557 (2014), section 19
ENQUIRIES
