本站首页 返回顶部 关于博主

Suretyship Agreement Deutsch

PDF版

For B2B transactions: unloaded (in part or in full), unless the guarantee confirms to the lender that its guarantee is granted independently of the other guarantee instruments and that the guarantee does not depend on the repayment by another guarantee instrument. Security has not always been achieved by executing a link. Frankpledge, for example, was a common guarantee system that prevailed in medieval England and did not rely on the execution of obligations. [22] On the other hand, Russian guarantees and independent guarantees must always be limited to a certain amount, even if a Russian guarantee is granted in the newly available “all-monies” format. In the case of independent guarantees, the limit value can be determined as a result of a calculation. With regard to Russian guarantees granted in the form of `specific funds`, the limit of this amount should not be explicit; The reference to the outstanding in the documents shown is sufficient. Unlike English guarantees, a Russian “specific monis” of collateral only covers the debts of these principal debtors and within the framework of agreements that can be “identified” at the time of entry into the Russian guarantee. This requirement that principal debtors be “identified” means that they must be named or belong to a group of identifiable persons. With regard to the underlying obligations, they must be “identified” by the indication of the purpose and purpose of the relevant agreements. Therefore, it is unlikely that the debts of new debtors or on the basis of new transaction documents that were subsequently made to the transaction will be covered by an existing Russian guarantee (without modification). This will also be the case where there is a mechanism in the primary documentation for the accession or designation of additional transaction documents (unless the relevant provisions are specific). The Hammurabi code, written around 1790 BC, contains the first known mention of security in a written code.

[Citation required] By guarantee, the guarantee obligation undertakes to respect the contractual commitments (obligations) of the contracting entity – to the benefit of the subject – if the client does not respect his commitments to the subject. The contract is concluded in such a way that the subject is required to enter into a contract with the contracting authority, i.e. to demonstrate the credibility of the contracting entity and to ensure performance and conclusion under the terms of the agreement. [Citation required] Given the nature and basic terminology of these instruments, the relative advantages and disadvantages of each in relation to certain scenarios remain. The first consideration is the possible scope. English warranties can be provided in an all-monis or “specific monies” format. In the “all funds” format, all debts of one or more persons to the beneficiary are accounted for under all agreements (which have not been specified and may exist or be concluded at a later date). The “specific funds” format covers only certain agreements and, although this may include contracts to be concluded in the future, an appropriate mechanism should be put in place to make it possible. These two species may cover all relevant principal debtor liabilities or, if agreed commercially, be limited to a ceiling for the eligible amount. Prescription periods on the warranty period are also possible, but also not necessary. “All funds” guarantees must be taken into account, as the surety generally has the right to terminate the guarantee at any time with respect to the principal debtor`s new debts.

In addition, “not all money guarantees” are suitable for use with union facilities. A guarantee generally requires a surety when the ability of the principal or principal to meet his obligations to the debtor (counterpart) under a contract is called into question or when there is a public or private interest requiring protection against the consequences of default or the offender of the client.