Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 90/1996 AI generated

Joint guarantee validity upheld when guarantors signed new debt instrument without prior consent of original debtors.

Case Number KKO 90/1996
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Finland ruled that the joint guarantee provided by A, B, and C was binding. The original debt was secured by two prior guarantors, and the new debt instrument was signed by the original debtors alongside the new guarantors. The court determined that the new guarantors' obligation was valid because they signed the instrument knowing the debt existed and the prior security arrangement, thereby accepting the liability.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 1000–1001 C. 10.1.1973; A joint guarantee is binding if the guarantors sign a new debt instrument acknowledging the debt and the existing security, even if they did not explicitly consent to the specific new debt terms prior to signing.

Keywords

AI generated
joint guarantee omavelkainen takaus debt instrument guarantor liability new debt obligation security arrangement binding agreement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 1000–1001 C. 10.1.1973
AI generated
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-other_1997_530
Supreme Court held that a surety's liability remains unchanged even if the creditor's claim against the co-surety is time-barred.
kko-precedent_1991_57
Guarantor's right of recourse upheld when guarantor paid despite prior notice of debt invalidity due to product defect.
kko-precedent_1989_12
Guarantor not fully released when creditor knew of forgery but had no reason to verify signature.
kko-precedent_2006_5
Supreme Court allows creditor to collect guarantee debt from guarantor's estate after debtor's voluntary debt restructuring.

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, B ja kolme muuta henkilöä olivat sitoutuneet omavelkaiseen takaukseen neljän päävelallisen velasta. Velka oli maksettu muun muassa luotolla, jota koskevassa velkakirjassa velallisina oli kaksi aikaisemmista päävelallisista. A, B ja C antoivat omavelkaisen takauksen uuden velkakirjan vakuudeksi. Kysymys takauksen sitovuudesta.