Section 126 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 A Contract To Perform The Promise or Discharge The Liability of The Third Person in Case of His Default
Section 126 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 A Contract To Perform The Promise or Discharge The Liability of The Third Person in Case of His Default
Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides for contract of Guarantee as “A Contract to
perform the promise or discharge the liability of the third person in case of his default.
“The person in respect of whose default the guarantee is gives is called Principal debtor” and
All the essentials of a valid contract must be present in the Contract of Guarantee.
Sec 126 of the act expressly declares that a guarantee may be either oral or written different from that
of England where it is necessary that for a valid contract of guarantee, it should be in writing.
3 Principal debt
There should be someone liable as a Principal debt and the surety should undertake to be liable on his
default. If there is no principal debt, there can be no valid guarantee.
In this case it was laid down that , “a contract of guarantee is a tripartite agreement which contemplates
the principal debtor, the creditor and the surety”.
4 Sufficient Consideration
In this case it was held that since no consideration in capacity of principal debtor had passed from
creditor at the time of execution of the document, nor was anything done for his benefit on that day,
the contract of guarantee was without consideration.
5 Consent
It is necessary that all the three parties’ i.e., the creditor, Principal debtor and the surety should agree to
the contract.
In the case of Swan vs. Bank of Scotland 1836, it was held that a contract of guarantee is a tripartite
agreement between the creditor, the principal debtor, and the surety.
A contract of guarantee is not a contract uberrimae fides or one of absolute good faith.
Section 142 provides for “Any Guarantee which is obtained by means of misrepresentation made by the
creditor, or with his knowledge and assent, concerning a material part of the transaction, is invalid.”
Section 143 provides for “Any guarantee which the creditor has obtained by means of keeping silence as
to material circumstance, is invalid”
In the case of London General Omnibus vs. Holloway 1912, a person was invited to guarantee an
employee, who was previously dismissed for dishonesty by the same employer. This fact was not told to
the surety. Later on, the employee embezzled funds but the surety was not held liable.
Conclusion:
A contract of guarantee requires important essentials for a valid guarantee. Without these essentials a
contract of guarantee cannot be formed.