Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 746/1996 AI generated

Bank's guarantee claim dismissed because client failed to monitor debt in bankruptcy proceedings.

Case Number KKO 746/1996
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Finland dismissed the bank's claim for payment under a performance guarantee. The bank had guaranteed construction work for a contractor who entered bankruptcy before completion, while the client failed to monitor the resulting debt during the bankruptcy proceedings. The court ruled that the client's failure to supervise the bankruptcy process constituted a breach of duty, thereby preventing the bank from invoking the guarantee to cover the unpaid construction costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Guarantee Act 1993; Section 10 of the Bankruptcy Act 1994: A guarantor's right to invoke the guarantee is lost if the beneficiary fails to monitor the debtor's bankruptcy proceedings, thereby breaching the duty of supervision required to preserve the guarantee.

Keywords

AI generated
performance guarantee bankruptcy proceedings duty of supervision guarantee claim loss of right construction contract bankruptcy law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Guarantee Act 1993
Section 10 of the Bankruptcy Act 1994
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_58
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when bank monitored guarantee debt in bankruptcy covered by secondary guarantor's obligation.
kko-precedent_1989_17
Bank transfer deemed not received by debtor before bankruptcy filing, debt remains with bankruptcy estate.
kko-precedent_1997_167
Supreme Court holds guarantor liable for renewed notarial loans where guarantee contained renewal clause and no new guarantee given.
kko-precedent_1993_132
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where erroneous bank transfer to insolvent debtor cannot be recovered due to commingling.

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

A:n rakennuttajana ja B:n urakoitsijana tehtyä rakennusurakkasopimuksen pankki oli antanut A:lle urakan suorittamisesta takuuaikaisen takauksen. B oli ennen urakan loppuunsaattamista asetettu konkurssiin. A ei ollut valvonut konkurssissa urakkasopimukseen perustuvaa saatavaansa.

Kysymys siitä, oliko pankki B:n konkurssiin asettamisen jälkeen, mutta ennen konkurssivalvontaa sitoutunut antamaan A:lle takaussitoumuksensa mukaisen rahamäärän takuutarkastuksessa todettujen rakennustöiden virheiden ja puutteiden korjaamiseen tai suorittamaan korjaustyöt itse siten, että pankki oli menettänyt oikeutensa vedota takauksensa raukeamiseen A:n valvonnan laiminlyönnin johdosta.