Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HO 13.11.1981 TU-739 AI generated

Guarantee against third party debt does not expire under guarantee statute if not covering specific payment obligation.

Case Number Turun HO 13.11.1981 TU-739
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court upheld the bank's claim against the guarantor for a third-party debt obligation that had not yet expired. The guarantor argued the guarantee was time-barred because it did not explicitly cover the specific payment made by the debtor. The court ruled that the guarantee statute's limitation period applies only to obligations explicitly included in the guarantee contract, not to payments made under separate third-party debt agreements.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TakausA 4 §; TakausA 10 §: The limitation period for a guarantee claim applies only to obligations explicitly included in the guarantee contract, not to payments made under separate third-party debt agreements.

Keywords

AI generated
guarantee limitation period third party debt explicit obligation inclusion bank guarantee claim statutory time bar

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TakausA 4 §
TakausA 10 §
AI generated
kko-precedent_1993_131
Supreme Court rejects one-year limitation defense for surety against bank's recourse claim due to lack of payment deadline in contract. The court held that the limitation period does not apply when the surety contract lacks a specific performance date. The court ruled that the limitation period does not apply because the surety contract lacked a specific performance deadline, allowing the bank to pursue the debt. The court held that the limitation period does not apply because the surety contract lacked a specific performance deadline, allowing the bank to pursue the debt. The court held that the limitation period does not apply because the surety contract lacked a specific performance deadline, allowing the bank to pursue the debt.
kko-precedent_1997_4
Guarantee not time-barred when payment plan does not affect debt maturity under guarantee act section 4.
kko-precedent_2007_43
Guarantee remains valid after debtor company liquidation; bankruptcy court order prevents debt prescription. Guarantee liability persists despite debtor's dissolution.
kko-precedent_1993_32
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where bank paid guarantee debt late but relied on established banking practice for time limits.
kko-precedent_1991_151
Guarantor liable for new loan guarantees not explicitly covered by original guarantee contract terms.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Säästöpankki oli omavelkaisen takaussitoumuksensa perusteella vekselivelallisen puolesta maksanut velkojalle määräpäivänä erääntyneen vekselin. Vekselivelallinen oli säästöpankille antamassaan vastasitoumuksessa sitoutunut vaadittaessa korvaamaan säästöpankille kaiken sen, minkä tämä harkitsi takauksensa perusteella olevansa velvollinen suorittamaan, sekä suorittamaan korkoa pankin maksamalle määrälle enintään 6 prosenttia yli pankin kulloinkin voimassa olleen korkeimman talletuskoron. A oli puolestaan sitoutunut omavelkaiseen takaukseen vekselivelallisen em. vastasitoumuksen täyttämisestä.

Kun A:n takaus ei käsittänyt sitoumusta määrättynä aikana tapahtuvasta

suorituksesta, siihen ei ollut sovellettava TakausA:n 4 §:ssä säädettyä vanhentumisaikaa.

Läsnä: Koskenniemi - P. Suominen - Kilpi (apuj.) Esittelijä: Leino

Lainvoimainen