Independent Guarantee and Suretyship: On the Expediency of Establishment of a Sole Private

Abstract

The article is devoted to the advisability of the simultaneous existence of two named personal means of securing obligations — a suretyship and an independent guarantee. Suretyship is a traditional guaranteeing obligation that has arisen in a modern form in the law of Ancient Rome and has been developing for two millennia. In turn, an independent guarantee is the result of the evolution of an artificially created, or rather, copied from foreign banking practice, to solve the problems of the command economy by the Soviet civil law institute of guarantee. As a result of the permanent reform of domestic law of obligations, the introduction of pro-creditor approaches in the practice of resolving disputes related to securing obligations, the borders between the suretyship and an independent guarantee are washed away. Both of these means today assume a third party’s monetary liability in case of a debtor’s malfunction in a secured obligation (suretyship is de jure, and an independent guarantee is de facto). There are obvious tendencies to give the qualities of accessory independence of an independent guarantee and, on the contrary, to the formation of signs of the abstractness of suretyship. In this regard, the author makes an assumption about the further development of personal methods of securing obligations in Russian civil law.