Page:พรบ ใช้ ปพพ ๒๕๓๕.pdf/33

 was aware of the intention hidden in his mind.

A sham expression of intention made in collusion with the other party is void, but it cannot be raised as a defence against a third person who acted in good faith and was injured by such sham expression of intention.

If the sham expression of intention under paragraph 1 is made for concealing another juristic act, the provisions of law relating to the concealed juristic act shall apply.

An expression of intention made under a mistake as to the essence of a juristic act is void.

A mistake as to the essence of a juristic act according to paragraph 1 is, for example, a mistake as to a characteristic of a juristic act, a mistake as to the identity of a party to a juristic act, or a mistake as to the property serving as the object of a juristic act.

An expression of intention made under a mistake as to an attribute of a person or property is voidable.

A mistake according to paragraph 1 must be a mistake as to an attribute normally deemed essential, without which the voidable act would not have been done.

The mistake according to section 156 or section 157 which occurred through gross negligence of the person expressing the intention cannot be invoked by him in his favour.

An expression of intention made as a result of fraud is voidable.

The fraud which would result in the voidability according to paragraph 1 must be considerable to the degree that, if without it, the voidable act would not have been done.

If one party has expressed his intention as a result of fraud committed by a third person, the expression of such intention is voidable only when the other party was aware or should have been aware of the fraud.

Avoidance of a voidable act on account of fraud according to section 159 shall not be raised as a defence against a third person who acted in good faith.

If fraud merely induces a party to accept a more onerous term than that which he would normally accept, the party cannot avoid it but he is entitled to claim compensation for the injury occurring from it.

In a bilateral juristic act, one party wilfully remaining silent instead of disclosing a fact or attribute unknown to the other party will constitute fraud if it can be proved that, without such silence, the juristic act would not have been done.