Contract of Guarantee is a specific performance contract. It is called specific performance because it is an equitable relief. This is not the usual legal remedy where compensation for damages is adequate. Damages and specific performance are both remedies available upon breach of obligations by a party to the contract; the former is a ‘substitutional remedy’, and the latter a ‘specific remedy’.
The law prescribes that in an event where the actual damage for not performing the contract cannot be measured or monetary compensation is not adequate, one party can ask the court to direct the other party to fulfil the requirements of the contract.
It is also a discretionary relief, that is, it is left to the court to decide whether specific performance should be given to a party asking for it.
Contract of Guarantee is Specific performance because the remedy is not the damages awarded by the court. The party has to fulfil its obligation under the contract i.e. perform a certain action he promised to do, instead of just paying money for his failure to fulfil obligations under the contract. It is the guarantor who commits to pay in case of default by the person for whom he has guaranteed. The nature of relief is of specific nature since guarantor has to perform the specific obligation, which he had undertaken under the agreement i.e. pay the assured.
Section 126 defines the Contract of Guarantee – A contract of guarantee involves three parties. It relates to the performance of contract on behalf of the third person whereby fulfilling his obligation under the contract by the guarantor
The person who gives the guarantee is called the ‘’Surety’’; the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the ‘’Principal Debtor’’, and the person to whom the guarantee is given is called the “Creditor”. A guarantee may be either oral or written.
It enables a person to get a loan, or goods on credit or employment. Some person comes forward and ensures the lender or the supplier or the employer that he may be trusted and in case of any untoward incident, “I undertake to be responsible”.
In the old case of Birkmyr v Darnell the court said: Where a collateral guarantee arises when two persons come to shop, one of them to buy, the other to give credit, thereby promising the seller stating if he doesn’t pay I will’’. This is a collateral guarantee.
In English law, a guarantee is defined as ‘’a promise to pay for the debt, default or failure of another’’. “Guarantees are a backup when the principal fails the guarantee act as second pockets’’.
The person who gives the guarantee is called the Surety, the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the Principal Debtor and the person to whom the guarantee is given is called the Creditor.
There must be a conditional promise to be liable on the default of the principal debtor. A liability which is incurred independently of a default is not within the definition of guarantee.
This principle was applied in Taylor v Lee where a landlord and his tenant went to the plaintiff’s store. The landlord said to the plaintiff: Mr Parker will be on our land this year, and you will sell him anything he wants, and I will see it paid.
This was held to be an original promise and not a collateral promise to be liable for the default of another and, therefore, not a guarantee.
Illustration: A sells and delivers goods to B. C afterwards requests A to forbear to sue B for the debt for a year, and promise that, if he does so, C will pay for them in default of payment by B. A agrees to forbear as requested. This is a sufficient consideration for C’s promise.
Section 128 speaks about one of the cardinal principles relating to the contract of guarantee. It states that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. The surety may, however, by an agreement place a limit upon his liability.
Section 128- The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.
Illustration- A guarantees to B the payment of a bill of exchange by C, the acceptor. The bill is dishonoured by C. A is liable not only for the amount of the bill but also for any interest and charges which may have become due on it.
An illustration in point is National Provincial Bank of England v Brackenbury: The defendant signed a guarantee which was intended to be a joint and several guarantees of three other persons with him. One of them did not sign. There is no agreement between the bank and the co-guarantors to dispense with his signature, the defendant was held not liable.
Proceeding against surety without exhausting remedies against the debtor
The defendant guaranteed a bank’s loan. A default had taken place, the defendant was sued. The trial court decreed that the bank shall enforce the guarantee in question only after having exhausted its remedies against the principal debtor. The Supreme Court overruled it stating that the very object of the guarantee is defeated if the creditor is asked to postpone his remedies against the surety. Solvency of the principal is not a sufficient ground for restraining execution of the decree against the surety.
Suit against surety alone
A suit against the surety without even prosecuting the principal debtor has been held to be maintainable. In this case, the creditor, in his affidavit, had shown sufficient reasons for not proceeding against the principal debtor.
Death of Principal debtor
A suit was filed against the principal debtor and surety. The suit against the principal debtor was found to be void ab initio because of his death even before the institution of the suit. The surety was held to be not discharged.
The surety may restrict his liability in the agreement. He can do this by expressly declaring his guarantee to be limited to a fixed amount. In such a case the surety cannot be liable for any amount beyond what is stated in the agreement. There might be a possibility that the principal debtor owes a greater amount but the surety will not be responsible for the amount exceeding what is stated in the agreement.
A loan for development and maintenance of bee culture was guaranteed. The surety undertook to be liable jointly and severally to pay off his instalments in case of failure on the part of the debtor. The bees died in consequence of a viral infection. There was a total failure of business. The debtor became disabled from paying instalments. The surety could not escape liability under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
The creditor’s right to recover money from the guarantor doesn’t depend on the possibility of guarantor able to recover the amount from the principal debtor.
Continuing Guarantee- A guarantee which operates on a number of transactions within a particular period, is called a ‘’Continuing Guarantee’’.
This type of guarantee includes a number of transactions over a period of time. A creditor can hold the surety responsible for the default of the principal debtor for transactions that happen within a period of time.
Illustration- A guarantees payment to B, a mobile dealer, to the amount of $100, for any mobile he may supply to C as required by C over a period of time. B supplies C with mobile above the value of $100, and C pays B for it. Afterwards B supplies C with mobile to the value of $200 . C fails to pay. The guarantee given by A was a continuing guarantee, and he is accordingly liable to B to the extent of $100.
The essential feature of a continuing guarantee is that it doesn’t restrict to a specific number of transactions, but to any number of them and makes the surety liable for the unpaid balance at the end of the guarantee.
In Chorley & Tucker the distinction is explained: “A specific guarantee provides for securing of a specific advance or for advances up to a fixed sum, and ceases to be effective on the repayment thereof, while a continuing guarantee covers a fluctuating account such as ordinary current account at a bank, and secures the balance owing at any time within the limits of the guarantee…’’
A guarantee for the conduct of a servant appointed to collect rents has been held by the Calcutta High Court to be a continuing guarantee.
Section 132- This Section speaks about a situation when there are two guarantors who are liable to the creditor as joint-debtors. It says that the liability of the creditor is not affected by any private arrangement (Order of their liability) between the two debtors regarding one being the surety of the other even if the creditor knows of this arrangement. The creditor is not concerned with their mutual agreement that on would be a principal and the other surety.
When the surety is no longer liable under the agreement the surety is said to be discharged from liability.
The Act recognises the following modes of discharge:
Revocation becomes effective for the future transactions while the surety remains liable for transactions already entered into.
Illustration- A guarantees for B making purchases from C to an extent of 10000rupees. After one month A revokes guarantee by giving notice to C. A will be liable for the supplies till the point he revoked his guarantee. Let’s say until revocation C supplied B with goods worth 6000rupees. A is under obligation to pay 6000 to C.
Illustration- A contracts with B for a fixed price to build a house for B within a given time, B supplying the necessary timber, C guarantees A’s performance of the contract. B omits to supply the timber. C is discharged from his suretyship.
Discharge: ( Section 135 ) Discharge of surety when creditor compounds with, gives time to or agrees not to sue principal debtor-. A contract where the creditor and principal debtor arrive at an arrangement which results in creditor making a composition with grants principal debtor with more time or undertakes not to sue the principal debtor absolves the surety. For this to operate the surety shouldn’t have assented to this arrangement between creditor and principal debtor.
The Section provides for three modes of discharge from liability:
If the creditor makes a composition with the principal debtor, without consulting the surety, the latter is discharged. Composition results in altering the original contract, and, therefore, the surety is discharged.
For Example- A settlement was entered into between the principal borrower and bank for one-time settlement without reference to the guarantor. The court said that this resulted to novation of the contract between the creditor and principal debtor to the exclusion of guarantor. The liability of the guarantor ceased to exist.
Promise to give time- Promise to give time: when there is a fixed time, according to the agreement for the repayment of the debt. It is one of the duties of the creditor towards the surety not to allow the principal debtor more time for payment. Although, giving time to the principal will benefit the surety but it will be against the spirit of the contract of guarantee, without the consent of the surety.
Thus, where the principal debtor was to make payment for gas supplied within fourteen days and on one occasion he having failed to pay, the supplier took a promissory note from him, this amounted to extension of time and thereupon the surety was discharged.
By impairing surety’s remedy ( Section 139 ): The creditor shouldn’t act in a way which is prejudice to surety’s interest. The remedy of the surety shouldn’t be affected by creditor’s action otherwise surety may be discharged.
It is one of the fundamental duties of the creditor not to do anything inconsistent with the rights of the surety. A surety after paying off the creditor, to secure his payment from the principal debtor.
This responsibility also directs the creditor to preserve the securities, if any, which he has against the principal debtor.
In Darwen&Pearce, The principal debtor was a shareholder in a company. His shares were partly paid and the payment of the unpaid balance was guaranteed by the surety. The shareholder defaulted in the payment of calls and the company forfeited his shares.
By reason of the forfeiture, the shares became the property of the company. If they had not been forfeited they would have belonged to the surety on payment of the outstanding calls. Thus, the forfeiture deprived the surety of his right to the shares and he was accordingly discharged.
Rights against the principal debtor
Rights of surety on payment or performance- The surety after paying the creditor or fulfilling his obligation under the contract takes the place of the creditor. He has all rights vested in him which the creditor had against the principal debtor.
When the surety has carried out all his obligations under the contract, he is conferred with all the rights which the creditor had against the principal debtor. The surety steps into the shoes of the creditor.
In Babu Rao Ramchandra Rao v Babu Manaklal Nehmal: “If the liability of the surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor, his right is not less coextensive with that of the creditor after he satisfies the creditor’s debt’’.
Rights before payment
The surety may possess certain rights even before payment. We have a case where the Calcutta High Court decided on similar lines. The surety found that the amount had become due, the principal debtor was disposing of his personal properties one after the other lest the surety, after paying, may seize them and sought a temporary injunction to prevent the principal debtor from doing so. The court granted the injunction.
Section (145) Implied promise to indemnify surety- In every contract of guarantee, there is an implicit promise by the principal debtor to save the surety from harm. The surety is entitled to claim from the principal debtor whatever sum he had agreed to pay under the guarantee, but no sums which he wasn’t obligated to pay under the contract.
Illustration: A guarantees to C, to the extent of 2000 rupees, payment for the rice to be supplied by C to B. C supplies to B rice to a less amount than 2000 rupees, but obtains from A payment of the sum of 2000 rupees in respect of the rice supplied. A cannot recover from B more than the price of the rice actually supplied.
The Section identifies the general rule of equity as observed in a case that the surety is entitled to redress which the creditor has against the principal debtor, including enforcement of every security.
On paying off the creditor the surety is exactly in the same positions as the creditor was against the principal debtor. The right exists irrespective of the fact whether the surety knows of the existence of such security or not.
The plaintiffs lent to B and P, who were traders, $300 for the payment of which the defendant became surety. At the time of the loan B and P assigned by deed as security for the debt, the lease of their business premises and plant, fixtures and things thereon. The plaintiff had the right to sell on default by giving a month’s notice. The default took place, but the defendant did not enter into possession. He received notice of the debtor’s insolvency but allowed them to continue in possession. Consequently, the assets were seized and sold by the receiver. It was held that the plaintiffs, by their omission to seize the property assigned on default, had deprived themselves of the power to assign the security to the surety. He was, therefore, discharged to the amount that the goods were worth.
For example, B was given the loan by the A of rupees 10,000/-, C, who is a surety in this contract gave a guarantee. A, became insolvent and when his property and assets was realised, when it was distributed by the official receiver and assignee, A got 1,000/- rupees. Now surety who is C in this case when he will make a payment to the A of rupees 10,000/-will ask the A to deduct the rupees 1,000/- which he has received from the official receiver and assignee. This right is the right available with the surety and it is known as a right to share reduction.
Where a debt has been guaranteed by more than one person, they are called co-sureties.
The released co-surety will remain liable to others for contribution in the event of default.
Illustration: A and B are co-sureties for the sum of 2000 rupees which has been given to D by the bank. D defaults, A and B are liable 1000 rupees each among themselves.
Illustration: A, B and C as sureties for D, enter into three several Bonds each in a different penalty, namely, A in the penalty of 10,000 rupees, B in that of 20,000 rupees, C in that of 40,000 rupees, conditioned for D’s duly accounting to E. D makes default to the extent of 30,000 rupees. A, B and C are liable to pay 10, 000 rupees.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
