Desafíos de traducción jurídica: Personal Guaranty… a «Special Kind of Contract»

 

En EEUU un contrato de fianza o aval (personal guaranty, en este caso) puede suscitar ambigüedades, como ocurrió en este caso en que el fiador se obligó por USD 39.000 pero estuvo a punto de tener que responder por varios millones de dólares. En Argentina, a diferencia de EEUU, el contrato de fianza está tipificado y acotado en sus efectos, sentido y alcances (Código Civil Título X). Por eso, al traducir un contrato de fianza es importantísimo tener en cuenta esta sustancial diferencia entre los sistemas jurídicos de ambos países y no dar nada por sobreentendido. La labor del traductor especializado en derecho comparado es fundamental.

Veamos un caso puntual tal como lo describe Jeshua Lauka en el artículo en inglés de su blog Business Case Law Update: Personal Guaranty…a “Special Kind of Contract”:

«Over the last few years I’ve posted a few articles on Personal Guarantees in a business transaction. I’ve noticed recently people coming across my articles while searching for “enforceability of a personal guarantee” – so this article, and the new case law I just reviewed is timely.

To summarize – 

Yes – a personal guaranty is enforceable

No –  a personal guaranty is not enforceable in EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE.

The case:

Stone Crest Building Co v Chicago Title (Unpublished) Michigan Court of Appeals, No. 319842

I. Facts: 

• Stone Crest (General Contractor) contracted to build several condo projects.
• Stone Creek  hired Stock Building (Subcontractor) to provide labor and material to the projects under an Agreement.
• Stone Creek rain into financial problems, so it couldn’t pay its Subcontractor.
• Stone Creek entered a new agreement (Note) with Subcontractor which included a Personal Guaranty from its President, Richard Sable.
• The Personal Guaranty unconditionally and absolutely guaranteed full payment of all sums under the Note ($39,000).
• Stone Creek breached the agreement and Personal Note.

II. Issue:

• Stone Crest agreed, the Personal Guaranty was enforceable; but
• Stone Crest argued that its scope was limited.
• Chicago Title claimed Stone Crest was not liable for $39,000, but all amounts due under the original Agreement, $9 million dollars! (You can see why this case didn’t settle – being personally liable for $39,000 v.s $9 Million – the two sides were pretty far apart in their settlement numbers)

III. Law: A Personal Guaranty is a “Special Kind” of Contract. …» (leer el articulo completo)