Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 2541/1996 AI generated

Guarantee clause requires debt maturity dates to be actual payment deadlines, not just invoice dates.

Case Number KKO 2541/1996
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the guarantor's appeal regarding the maturity dates of debts arising from a credit facility. The guarantor argued that invoice dates should count as maturity dates under the guarantee clause, while the creditor insisted on actual payment deadlines. The court ruled that the statute explicitly defines maturity dates as those when payment is due, excluding mere invoice dates.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 4 of the Guarantee Act; The term 'maturity date' in a guarantee clause refers strictly to the date payment becomes due, not the date of the invoice or delivery.

Keywords

AI generated
guarantee clause maturity date credit facility invoice date payment deadline

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 4 of the Guarantee Act
AI generated
kko-precedent_1993_159
Supreme Court allows guarantor liability when debt restructuring extends maturity date within guarantee clause.
kko-precedent_1997_124
Supreme Court allows guarantor liability for full debt amount when debt maturity date was disputed and not yet fixed at guarantee signing.
kko-precedent_1997_4
Guarantee not time-barred when payment plan does not affect debt maturity under guarantee act section 4.
kko-precedent_1998_68
Supreme Court allows guarantee claim where insolvency proceedings interrupted the special limitation period.
appeal_1981_turku__739
Guarantee against third party debt does not expire under guarantee statute if not covering specific payment obligation.

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

Yhtiö A oli ollut tililuottosuhteessa yhtiöön B. Takaaja oli sitoutunut omavelkaiseen takaukseen kaikkien A:lla B:lle olevien ja vastaisuudessa syntyvien velvoitteiden, vastuiden ja sitoumusten määräaikaisesta maksamisesta. Kysymys siitä, oliko tavaratoimituksia koskeneessa tililuottosuhteessa syntyneiden laskujen eräpäiviä pidettävä takausasetuksen 4 §:ssä tarkoitettuina velan erääntymispäivinä.