Payment of DDU by a third party - features and nuances of document preparation

Home / Bankruptcy / Bankruptcy of legal entities

Back

Published: 05/22/2020

Reading time: 4 min

256

If the law or contractual obligations between the parties do not indicate the obligation to fulfill one’s debt obligations personally, the debtor has the right to transfer this obligation to another person. This follows from the provisions of Art. 313 Civil Code. But at the same time, the debtor must comply with certain procedural requirements and send a letter to the third party asking him to pay the debt for him.

How does a third party pay a debt?
Procedure for writing a letter What information must be provided
Who signs the letter
Creditor Notice

Dear readers! To solve your problem, call hotline 8 or ask a question on the website. It's free.

Ask a Question

Definition

Consider the role of third parties in creating agreements. It is usually considered that a third party is a participant who enters into the process of fulfilling an obligation under a formalized agreement voluntarily or, in some cases, involved by the court. This is a party that can put forward certain claims to the subject of the dispute and acts to protect its own rights on the side of the creditor or the obligated party, taking into account its interests of a material, legal or procedural nature.

However, in relation to a certain obligation, the third party does not have a contractual relationship with the organization. That is, payment in the interests of a third party is made not by the company itself, but by its counterparty. Or, conversely, the payment of a debt by a third party is carried out not for the company itself, but for another company to which this organization owes money, and the payments are offset.

For example, a supplier of certain services or goods may ask its partner to pay a debt to housing and communal services. In this case, for this partner, the organization in favor of which he will make payments will be a third party. True, according to Article 313 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, he has every right not to make such payments if this is not directly stated in the contract. A lawsuit in this case will also not help, since arbitrators cannot force voluntary actions to be carried out.

https://youtu.be/EG4H3WFH_T0

General concepts

In accordance with Article 307 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, usually two persons take part in drawing up agreements with the obligations arising from it: the creditor and the party obligated to him, but the third party is no longer included in the circle of persons concluding the agreement. Accordingly, it does not receive any obligations or rights under this agreement, as stated in the Resolution “On Certain Issues of Application” No. 54, which was adopted in 2020 by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

However, there are exceptions to this rule. In some situations, third parties have a certain connection with what is happening. This happens in the following cases:

If the parties to the agreement entered into an agreement in favor of the third party, and not in the interests of the creditor. For example, this could be an agreement on compulsory auto insurance for the owner of the vehicle.
When a third party fulfills the obligations of the debtor entrusted to it (an example is payment by third parties of a loan) or replaces the creditor as a participant accepting the fulfillment of the terms of the contract.
If a third party has any other influence on the executed agreement. This includes written consent to the transaction.

At the same time, it should be remembered that the third party is not a party to the original agreement between the creditor and the obligee, even in situations where it accepts the role of one or another party, taking into account the signed agreement and the current situation.

Repayment of debt by a third party in enforcement proceedings

The work of executive bodies in our country, as a rule, is associated with the work of bailiffs who collect debts from negligent debtors.

According to Art. 2 of the Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, the tasks of enforcement proceedings include the correct and timely execution of acts of judicial authorities, as well as acts of other bodies and officials, and in certain cases provided for by law - the execution of other documents for:

protection of violated rights, freedoms, legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities;
ensuring the fulfillment of obligations arising on the basis of international treaties of the Russian Federation.

Thus, enforcement proceedings are of great importance for Russian society, but they are often complicated by the fact that it is established that the debtor has insufficient or absent property that can be foreclosed on. In this case, the fulfillment of the debtor’s obligations by a third party during enforcement proceedings can be called an opportunity quite beneficial for all parties to the process. It is optimal to implement this opportunity at the stage of initiating enforcement proceedings .

Additionally

According to paragraph 11 of Art. 30 of the Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, upon the initial receipt of a writ of execution, the bailiff assigns the debtor a period for voluntary compliance with the requirements contained in the writ of execution. This period, as a general rule, is five days from the day the debtor receives a decision to initiate proceedings against him.

However, for the repayment of a debt by a third party in enforcement proceedings, it may also take place at other stages of the process. A person who repays a debtor’s debt in enforcement proceedings can be classified as a person who directly fulfills the requirements contained in the writ of execution (under Article 48 of the Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”).

Example

Organization A, engaged in tailoring, owed organization B, engaged in the sale of finished products, money in the amount of 500 thousand rubles. Since there were no funds in the defendant’s accounts, the arbitration court, as security for the claim, seized the real estate of organization A. As part of the enforcement proceedings, an individual entrepreneur who collaborated with organization A. and was interested in continuing such cooperation, transferred by payment orders the entire amount to be recovered from A. the amount to the account of the Bailiff's Office to pay off the debt, after which this amount was transferred to the collector, and the seizure of the debtor's real estate was lifted. The debtor and the individual entrepreneur entered into an agreement to repay the debt, which was provided to the bailiffs as justification for the fulfillment of the debtor’s obligation by a third party.

Fulfillment of an obligation by a third party

In accordance with Article 313 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a third party can begin to fulfill obligations both on a voluntary basis and on the initiative of the obligated party. The law allows partial or full payment by third parties under an agreement of any types of debts and obligations. But the final decision to accept such execution lies with the creditor. At the same time, the latter does not have the authority to refuse to repay the debt by a third party in the following exceptional situations:

if the debtor was late in fulfilling a financial obligation;
when the debtor transfers his obligations to a third party in a documented manner;
if the rights to the debtor’s property belong to a third party, and it may lose them due to a penalty imposed on the obligated party.

Other situations involve the imposition of obligations on the debtor himself, especially if this is initially specified in the contract, legislative regulations and other provisions and acts, while payment by third parties is not allowed. Also, the creditor has every right to refuse to involve a third party in the execution of the agreement, as stated in Article 313 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

If the creditor nevertheless refuses to allow the third party to fulfill the obligations, there is a possibility that it will be recognized as a delinquent party. Consequently, due to losses associated with delay, the obligated party has every right not to pay accrued interest for the entire period of delay under the concluded agreement. Article 406 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation officially confirms this rule.

Payment of debt by a third party: The Supreme Court develops the practice of bankruptcy cases

The Economic Board of the Supreme Court once again examined the problem of applying Art. 313 of the Civil Code on the execution of a debt by a third party in the context of a bankruptcy case. The former general director of the debtor tried to gain control over the procedure, but the latter’s debt to him was paid by another creditor company. The Moscow district cassation assessed her actions as abuse. As a result, a balance of interests was sought in the Supreme Court. And according to lawyers, they found it.

The Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for Economic Disputes (ECS) published a ruling in the bankruptcy case of Angarstroy LLC (No. A41-108121/2015). “This case is very interesting from the point of view of the interpretation of the concept of “abuse of law,” which has been actively developed recently. First, the Supreme Court, and then this trend was fully picked up by the Economic College of the Supreme Court,” says Maria Mikheenkova, a lawyer from Dentons . True, in the Angarstroy case, IES, unlike its previous approaches, did not see the abuse, which the cassation of the Moscow District recognized. “At first glance, it may seem that this does not fit into the general trend of legal approaches of the IES. However, in this case, details are of great importance, and it is necessary to carefully evaluate its specific factual circumstances,” Mikheenkova points out.

But the actual circumstances are as follows. Three former employees of Angarstroy applied to the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region to declare the company bankrupt. The employer owed them 314,000 rubles. severance payments. However, by the time of the court hearing, this debt for the company was repaid by another creditor - (she deposited money through a notary deposit), who, following the employees, also filed an application to declare Angarstroy insolvent.

Art. 313 of the Civil Code (Civil Code) allows for the fulfillment of an overdue obligation of the debtor by a third party, and the Bankruptcy Law does not prohibit this at the stage of verifying the validity of the application, the first instance reasoned. Taking into account this, as well as the fact that the debt to the employees was fully repaid, the court left their application without consideration, refusing to introduce a monitoring procedure.

The appeal board of the 10th AAS agreed with this, but the board of the Moscow District Court did not. She sent the dispute for a new consideration on the merits. According to the district cassation, the actions of Intermix-Invest “show clear signs of abuse of law.” The company simply wanted to deprive former employees of the status of applicants in the bankruptcy case so that they could not propose their candidacy for an arbitration manager ( Article 42 of the Bankruptcy Law ), the cassation explained its logic.

In support, the judges of the AC MO referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court Collegium on Economic Disputes (ECS): two rulings on refusal to transfer the case (No. 302-ES15-1618 and No. 305-ES16-7422) and two ECJ rulings on the merits (in within the framework of the bankruptcy case of the Oganer Complex No. 302-ES16-2049 and the Aksai Road Repair and Construction Department No. 308-ES16-4658). In the last two cases, the IES also considered the possibility of repaying the debt of a bankrupt company to the applicant by a third party, comments Ilya Dedkovsky, senior lawyer at the KIAP law office . And then the Supreme Court saw in the actions of those who repaid the debts an abuse of law. See “No to formalism, yes to the interests of creditors: “bankruptcy” decision of the Supreme Court.”

But we need to look at the judicial practice of the Supreme Court more carefully, the IES itself corrected the cassation of the district, where the dispute reached the complaint of Intermix-Invest. She upheld the acts of the first two instances. The AC MO's references are erroneous, since the circumstances of those cases are different. The nuance is that, unlike the Angarstroy case, the creditors received only partial satisfaction of their claims.

And the wolves are fed, and the sheep are safe...

Within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Law, the interest of any creditor lies primarily in the most complete repayment of claims, the IES recalled in its definition. And as a result, all tools provided to the creditor to influence the course of the procedure should be aimed at achieving this goal. The debt to the former employees has been fully repaid, they have no other claims against Angarstroy, which means they cannot have a legal interest in participating in the bankruptcy itself. “In essence, the IES made an important conclusion that abuse of rights does not exist in itself, but only as a violation of the legal rights and interests of third parties: if the behavior does not violate such rights, then it cannot be an abuse,” explains Maria Mikheenkova . Another important point in the IES motivation, she said, is attention to specific details.

As indicated in the Supreme Court’s definition, Intermix-Invest itself did not hide the fact that its actions were of a “protective” nature, and it was acting in an economically unprofitable manner. The company paid off the demands of the individual applicants so that bankruptcy proceedings would be initiated based on its application, and it was she who could nominate a manager. She feared an unscrupulous, debtor-controlled bankruptcy, her representatives explained at a meeting in the Supreme Court. The fact is that one of the former employee-applicants was the general director of Angarstroy, all real estate properties were sold on the eve of bankruptcy, and the employees’ application was generally filed with the court even before the decisions of the SOJ on the payment of benefits came into force. IES openly drew attention to all this in its definition. So the question of who abused the right remains open.

Maria Mikheenkova, Dentons: VS showed an attentive and differentiated approach. As a positive point, I would like to note the rather direct formulations of the Supreme Court, stating the widely established, but often hushed up by the courts, practice of dishonest behavior of bankruptcy participants, their real goals.

The Economic College once again faced the issue of maintaining a balance of interests of the parties in the bankruptcy procedure, says Anna Zabrotskaya, adviser, lawyer and head of the Dispute Resolution practice at Legal . The creditor, having paid the debt to the debtor's employees, satisfied the interests of determining the weaker side of the labor relationship, moreover, in full and in the shortest possible time, which eliminates the need for them to further participate in the bankruptcy process. “Participation should not be an end in itself, otherwise reasonable doubts arise about the integrity of these workers,” Zabrotskaya is sure. The creditor, pursuing the interest of not losing a share in the property mass, gives for the debtor the maximum that the employees could count on, the lawyer explains: “Thus, both the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe.”

Peace, labor, guarantees

The IES separately noted in its definition that Art . 313 Civil Code. A representative of Angarstroy insisted to the Supreme Court on the contrary, citing the labor nature of the legal relationship. “Such a claim, being declared within the framework of a bankruptcy case, due to the specifics of insolvency procedures, acquires a private law character,” the Supreme Court judges responded to this. Moreover, repayment of debt by a third party ensures the implementation of guarantees for the payment of severance pay to employees, which is generally consistent with the goals and principles of labor legislation.

Thus, the IES excludes the inextricable connection of claims from labor relations with the identity of the creditor in case of delay, comments Ivan Korshunov, lawyer at Egorov, Puginsky, Afanasyev and Partners, on this conclusion. Recently, the Supreme Court has already expressed a similar position, citing as an example the delay in alimony obligations, the lawyer draws attention (see paragraph 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “ On some issues of application of the general provisions of the Civil Code on obligations and their fulfillment” No. 54 of November 22, 2016 ).

New perspective

The definition of the IES opens a new page in the history of the war of creditors for control over the bankruptcy procedure, which was largely reached after the approval of the Review of judicial practice on issues related to the participation of authorized bodies in bankruptcy cases and the bankruptcy procedures applied in these cases (approved by the Presidium Sun December 20, 2016), says Dmitry Bazarov, partner at BGP Litigation . There, the Supreme Court indicated that the candidacy of the arbitration manager proposed by the applicant in the bankruptcy case cannot be changed by subsequent creditors, even if they pay off the applicant’s claims in the case under Art. 313 of the Civil Code and will carry out procedural succession (buying out the claims of the first creditor in this case loses all meaning).

The case shows the relevance of the problem of repaying debts by third parties in order to gain control over the debtor’s bankruptcy or, conversely, to fight against other persons seeking such control, comments Artem Kukin, partner at Infralex, . The main criterion is the assessment of the integrity of persons repaying other people's debts. True, the Supreme Court has more often encountered cases of dishonest repayment of debts to third parties. In the Angarstroy case, the situation is the opposite - a third party paid for the debtor in order to protect against unfair actions of creditors.

Thus, the Supreme Court evaluates situations related to the repayment of debts by third parties from different angles, says Kukin. The difficulty is that the provisions of Art. 313 of the Civil Code contains minimal restrictions for such actions. These, according to the lawyer, are the principle of good faith, the inadmissibility of abuse of rights, as well as special provisions of the Bankruptcy Law (they apply only after the introduction of the first bankruptcy procedure against the debtor).

Consequences

As stated in Article 408 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, payment made properly by third parties indicates the end of the validity period of the executed agreement. If a third party has assumed the fulfillment of obligations delegated by the debtor, and this operation has been documented, then the conditions under which the executed agreement will cease to be valid are regulated by the provisions specified in it.

If a third party has fulfilled the obligations of the debtor on a voluntary basis, then, in this case, according to Article 387 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it receives the rights of a creditor, and the authorized participant in the agreement withdraws from it.

However, if payment by a third party caused damage to any of the parties to the contract, then the acquisition of creditor rights by the third party may be recognized as an invalid act.

In situations where a third party refuses to fulfill obligations officially delegated by the debtor or performs them improperly, liability to the creditor lies with the party obligated to it. The principle of liability here is based on the fact that the creditor is not obliged to lose if the executor is replaced. This also applies to situations of narrowing the boundaries of the debtor’s liability, in which the interests of a third party are protected. For example, when transferring things for storage, the depositor himself is liable only in the event of a gross oversight or when intent occurs. The custodian who transferred the property for storage to another person is responsible for the actions of this third party.

If a creditor transfers his right to collect debts to another person, the executor, in accordance with Article 312 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, must require evidence from this person of his authority. Failure to comply with this provision may lead to the likelihood that the person in whose interests the obligations will be performed will be found to be improper.

If a third party independently repays the debt of the obligated party (in cases where it is not financial), then it is responsible for shortcomings in the execution of the contract instead of the debtor. However, due to its inconsistency, this legislative norm is rarely used in judicial practice.

Possible risks when paying for DDU by an outsider

This method of payment under the contract cannot be called completely safe; there are certain risks. The shareholder needs to take into account that all responsibility for failure to fulfill obligations under the DDU lies only with him, and not with the company to which he instructed to make the payment. If the money is not transferred, the responsibility for this falls on the participant, so it is in his interests to ensure that all formalities are followed.

It is advisable to adhere to the above transaction execution scheme. A letter from the participant requesting payment and a payment order indicating the DDU data can later serve as evidence of payment under a specific agreement. This is important both for the shareholder himself and for the developer.

In judicial practice, there are cases when, in the absence of such evidence, the company that transferred the payment subsequently, through the court, recovered money from the recipient of the payment for illegal enrichment. In this case, the shareholder himself will suffer, for whom in such a situation there is a danger of ending up in debt, and then he will be forced to pay his debt on his own. In addition, the developer may require the participant to pay a penalty for late payment, which he will also have to pay.

If payment for a participant is made by a private person, then it is also necessary to have a document that serves as the basis for making the payment. Such a document can be a letter sent in accordance with all the rules requesting the deposit of money or a power of attorney certified by a notary. These documents will be useful to the shareholder to justify the payment made during the trial if the developer declares that money has not been received into his account.

Eviction

In some cases, it is possible to confiscate the buyer’s property on grounds that arose even before the sale of the goods - this process is called eviction. The term appeared in Ancient Rome. It means that if the seller of the property is not the owner, he may have to be liable to the buyer, since a third party (the original owner) may reclaim the goods.

Thus, during eviction, the claims of a third party will be satisfied only if certain obligations are created for the participant to his counterparty. The seller will be obliged to compensate the buyer for damages in the event of seizure of the last purchased property.

Eviction is discussed in Articles 461 and 462 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. It states here that if a disagreement arises and the goods are alienated from the acquirer, the seller must participate in the case, otherwise he will not be able to subsequently provide any evidence. The seller will be liable even if an agreement is executed between the seller and the buyer releasing the seller from obligations in relation to the goods sold. Despite the mandatory nature of the articles, they also indicate situations in which it is possible to limit the seller’s liability and make payment for goods by third parties.

Eviction acts to protect the interests of buyers who carry out lawful actions. If the purchaser of the property at the time of purchase of the goods knew about the ownership of a third party, then he does not have the right to use the current rules for regulating eviction.

The rules of eviction apply to any agreement under which the alienated property was acquired.

Agreement between a third party and a debtor

Most often, payment by third parties and repayment of the debtor’s obligations is carried out on the basis of a formalized agreement. Often, a third party agrees to sign this agreement if it already has certain obligations in favor of the obligated party. In this regard, the conclusion of such an agreement is of particular interest to the third party, since it allows it to relieve itself of current liability to the debtor.

The agreement can be drawn up in free form; the parties to the agreement can stipulate any conditions in it to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. The legislation does not regulate in any way the content and form of such an agreement. Most often, such agreements contain the following information:

name of the agreement;
registration address and date;
details of the obligated party and third party;
information about the agreement, the execution of which is delegated to a third party;
data on the rights, responsibilities and obligations of the parties;
signatures of participants;
events occurring after the due fulfillment of obligations by a third party (this includes termination of debt to the obligated party).

Repayment of debt by a third party: legal features

According to current legislation, the debtor’s obligations can be fulfilled by a third party in cases where other conditions are not specified by law or contract. In practice, not a single loan agreement stipulates the obligation to repay the loan personally by the borrower.

This means that the borrower’s loan can be repaid by any other person. The law does not prohibit any citizen from visiting a bank branch in order to repay someone else’s loan. To carry out the operation, you only need the borrower's passport. It follows that the payment can be made by the guarantor for this loan, the mortgagor or any other person not in any way connected with this loan.

Such features of the loan agreement are convenient for both parties. If the borrower has any circumstances in his life (business trip, illness, forgetfulness, bankruptcy), then repayment of the debt by a third party is the only way out of the situation, which allows you to avoid delays.

But the absence of an obligation to make payments personally allows relatives, guarantors or other third parties to carry out this operation without the participation of the borrower. Such opportunities are beneficial for both the bank and the borrower, since the latter’s credit history does not suffer.

In cases where the loan is repaid not by the borrower, but by a third party, the bank (creditor) is obliged to accept such payment for the debtor. At the same time, in the “Purpose of payment” column of the cash receipt order, it is indicated that the payment was made for the debtor under the loan agreement (number and date of the agreement).

But there is one important circumstance. Repayment of accounts payable by a third party can only be made through monthly payments. Partial or full repayment of the loan can only be made by the borrower himself, since in this case a corresponding application must be drawn up, signed by the borrower himself.

But even if the borrower cannot be present in person, there is a way out. To repay the loan, a notarized power of attorney is required for the person who will deposit the money. At the same time, the power of attorney must specifically stipulate the possibility of partial and full early repayment of the loan.

Order to fulfill obligations

In most cases, the debtor can send an order to a third party to fulfill the obligation with a separate additional document drawn up for the implementation of the agreement. It usually looks like a letter to the head of the company from a counterparty. It should contain the following information:

details of the agreement and its name, to which the created order serves as an annex;
information about the obligation imposed on a third party instead of the obligated party (including the amount to pay the invoice, the purpose of the transfer indicating the account or agreement numbers, details of the organization indicating where the payment must be transferred if this is a monetary obligation);
additional clarifying information;
consequences arising after the implementation of the contract.

A detailed presentation of all data will protect the payer from possible risks.

In order to pay off the counter-obligation, payment for a third party may also be applied. The purpose of a payment made in this way is to mutually offset debts, that is, the organization covers its debts by paying off the obligations of its creditor. In this case, the order must reflect information that contains the details of the invoice, act, the agreement itself and other documents, taking into account current circumstances. The document must also indicate information about the counter-obligation that will be repaid in this way. The order is signed by an authorized person - the head of the organization.

Rules for document preparation

The law does not provide clear instructions on how to formalize the assignment of payment obligations to a third party. But there is an established practice of executing such transactions. If the financing of the construction of the facility will be provided by an organization, then a letter must be drawn up in its name with a request to make payment under the DDU.

The letter must indicate:

details of the company entrusted with fulfilling the obligation (full name, details);
payment amount;
within what time payment must be made;
details of the developer company for transferring money;
information about the shareholder (full name, address) for whom the money is being paid;
the purpose of payment indicates the details of the DDU for which payment is made (number, date of conclusion).

The letter should be sent to the organization by post with acknowledgment of receipt or taken to the company in person. In the latter case, you must put the stamp of the organization on your copy, and it must also have the signature and position of the person who accepted it. When making a payment, the organization must indicate in a payment order addressed to the developer for whom and under what agreement the payment is being made. It is advisable that the equity holder also have a copy of the payment slip with the bank’s mark.

It is also recommended to send a letter to the developer stating that the shareholder entrusts the fulfillment of his obligations under the agreement to a third party. It must indicate the details of the organization that will make the payment, as well as a request to accept execution. The letter is sent to the construction company in the same way.

Notice of fulfillment of obligations

When the debtor delegates his obligations to a third party, most often the creditor is forced to accept this fact. However, the law does not provide for mandatory verification by the creditor of information about the existence of such an order and the data contained in it. Despite this, it is advisable that the debtor sends a notification to the creditor about the fulfillment of the obligation by a third party. This is done to avoid delays in the process of fulfilling the contract and disagreements between the parties to the agreement.

There are cases when such a notice is sent to the debtor himself. This usually occurs after the third party, on its own initiative, fulfills the debtor's obligations. If the obligated party is not notified in a timely manner about the completion of obligations, consequences are likely in the form of the risk of the obligated party repaying the obligation to the previous creditor.

Paying taxes

When making payments by third parties, the question may arise as to how legal it is to use a VAT deduction. However, neither the Tax Code nor the Ministry of Finance see any obstacles to such actions. This is also evidenced by the absence of special provisions on the use of deductions in Article 172 of the Tax Code when paying taxes by third parties, so this does not affect the use of deductions.

Long-term judicial practice also speaks in favor of companies that deduct VAT after payment is made. Court decisions have confirmed that the actual payment to a third party does not affect the validity of using VAT deductions.

Introductory information

Civil legislation will allow the “maneuvers” described above with payment only if the documents are completed correctly.
Firstly, well-drafted documents will protect the organization from disputes (including litigation) with counterparties. Order an electronic statement and check the counterparty in “Kontur.Focus”

Secondly¸ documents are necessary for tax purposes (this is required by Article 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates the procedure for accounting for expenses), and for the purposes of proper accounting (this is recalled by the article of the Federal Law of 06.12.11 No. 402-FZ “On Accounting” ). Thirdly, documenting a transaction is important for management accounting purposes, since it allows the management and shareholders (participants, beneficiaries) of the company to have a correct idea of what is happening in it.

Applying for a loan with a guarantor

In order to better understand the issues of payment by third parties, we can consider a particular and most common example of this phenomenon: a loan with a guarantor. It is issued in cases where it is necessary to take out a loan for a fairly large amount, but the amount of the white salary is not enough for approval by the bank. Then loans that are issued under the guarantee of legal entities and individuals can serve as a way out of the situation.

A loan with a guarantee is one of the main mechanisms that allows you to ensure the fulfillment of obligations assigned to the borrower. In this case, the guarantor is a person who can be either an individual or a legal entity, who repays the borrower’s debt if the latter fails to comply with the terms of the loan. Both parties to the agreement (borrower and guarantor) bear equal responsibility.

Clients apply for a loan with a guarantor in the following situations:

to reduce interest rates;
to receive a larger amount of money;
in the absence of official employment (in some cases);
with a not entirely favorable credit history.

If the borrower violates the terms of the guarantee agreement, responsibility for their implementation falls on the shoulders of the guarantor. He will be required to repay the principal amount of the debt and the accompanying commission, which includes fines, penalties, interest and other payments. As you might guess, the guarantor is a third party when concluding a loan agreement.

When applying for a loan, a surety agreement must be drawn up. Depending on the parties involved in creating the agreement, it can be either bilateral - between the lender and the guarantor, or trilateral, in the creation of which another party - the borrower - participates. If the need arises, a collateral agreement is additionally drawn up. It is drawn up to ensure additional security of the transaction; the property of the borrower or guarantor serves as collateral.