Guarantor for my daughter

gargoyle

So basically the landlord needs to contact me. I didn't intend to cause confusion, I just wanted to know where we all stood.

SmashedAvacado

you dont need to do anything. This only will ever become an issue if your daughter defaults.

zagubov

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

you dont need to do anything. This only will ever become an issue if your daughter defaults.

Not sure if it applies in this case, but sometimes, if it involves shared accommodiation, the guarantor can find themselves liable if any of the tenants defaults/leaves early, etc.

steampowered

My reading of the wording you posted is that you are still a guarantor. The guarantee is clear that it covers extensions and rental increases.

You could try to argue that you weren't formally "notified" of the new lease but you are clearly aware of it - so very 50/50 whether you would win with that argument in a court room!

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

The problem is the G_M is focusing on the wording of the deed and not the law. Its not as simple as isolating what the document says. There is a legal principle that provides that changes to the lease to the detriment of the guarantor which are not approved by the guarantor can have the effect of releasing the guarantor. The wording of the deed is only one part of the story.

The law is complicated on matters such as this. Its certainly not limited to what has been "agreed" contractually.

That legal principle is only a presumption. It can be disapplied by the wording of the guarantee. The overriding principle of English contract law is freedom of contract, the courts will enforce what is written on the page!

SmashedAvacado

steampowered wrote: »

My reading of the wording you posted is that you are still a guarantor. The guarantee is clear that it covers extensions and rental increases.

You could try to argue that you weren't formally "notified" of the new lease but you are clearly aware of it - so very 50/50 whether you would win with that argument in a court room!


That legal principle is only a presumption. It can be disapplied by the wording of the guarantee. The overriding principle of English contract law is freedom of contract, the courts will enforce what is written on the page!

Sadly this isnt the case.

Contracts of guarantee are construed strictly against the person in whose favour they are made and are subject to many technical rules which can result in the release of the guarantor from all liability. One thing which can release a guarantor is a variation of the underlying contract. The basic rule is that, unless the variation is clearly insubstantial or self-evidently will not prejudice the guarantor, a guarantor will be released from all liability under its guarantee if all of the following occur:
The underlying contract is varied.
The variation is binding on the person(s) whose liability the guarantor has guaranteed.
The guarantor does not consent to the variation.
(Holme v Brunskill [1878] 3 QBD 495.)

Wording to the effect that "Nothing in this licence shall increase or extend the liability of the Tenant’s Guarantor pursuant to the Guarantee Document". This sort of provision will have no effect on whether or not there is a variation sufficient to release the guarantor

steampowered

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

Sadly this isnt the case.

The rule you describe can be disapplied by specific wording in the guarantee which state that the guarantee continues notwithstanding a variation of the underlying contract. These days pretty much all properly written guarantee templates contain that wording.

SmashedAvacado

steampowered wrote: »

The rule you describe can be disapplied by specific wording in the guarantee which state that the guarantee continues notwithstanding a variation of the underlying contract. These days pretty much all properly written guarantee templates contain that wording.

They do contain that wording.
That doesnt mean that wording has any effect.
Perhaps take a look at PLC or Westlaw. Which i assume you have access to.