Talk:Guarantee

Notability/separate article

Does this require a page or should it be put to Wiktionary? -- Ronincyberpunk

It's been redirected to Contract. Ellsworth 22:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of 18:56, 13 February 2005 incorporated text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica {{1911}}).
At the time of the first redirect at 15:22, 5 August 2005, there doesn't seem to have been a huge departure from the original 1911 text.
The article on Surety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't actually mention the term guarantee (with that spelling), save from a link to loan guarantee.
The very short editing history of Guaranty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't seem particularly relevant, although there were previous comments worth noting at Talk:Guaranty#Redirect to where?
The spelling has been contested on at least one occasion.
Also of relevance may be the wiktionary entries:

Is this a case of (subtle?) differences in terminology/definition in worldwide usage? Are there distinct separate legal definitions? Do all such terms rightly belong within one article, or are they individually notable because of different usage/definitions?

I was tempted to boldly reinstate the most recent article text to Guarantee. However, not having an especially in-depth knowledge of legal terms, I thought it best to ask first. -- Trevj (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all a Barnstar for digging up so much in to history of an article.

A) I am not sure why some one redirected an article without proper merger of available content in other articles.But certainly any such decesion seems to have been in haste without enough deservable discussion,IMO so it would be nice to reinstate the article as you suggested above.

B) Involvement of legal fraternity is on lower side in Wikipedia contribution and they are not likely to be able to dig so much in history of an article to find old content and present their openion.Even after reinstating it may take longer time for prpoer decesion with a due discussion. For this reason the old content needs to be in open so some one some day will take more prudent decesion.

C) Don't know exactly about this case but usually subtle? differences in legal terminology/definition also do matter and usually can have potential to generate enough encyclopedic content.But as I said involvement on legal articles on wikipedia is not on satisfactory so cant predict how much time it would take for a minimum ok level article.

D) deserves minimum disambiguation level and hence need reinstatement to previous level.

Mahitgar (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for making those useful points. I'll try to have a look into this within the next week or two. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've simply reverted the content as a first step. I've also dropped a note at Ellsworth's talk page. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is no longer a redirect, I have removed the classification from the project template. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ć== Update ==

I have extensively edited the article with the primary purpose of Wikifying it (added sections, standardizing references, reducing jargon) as identified. In the process, I see a problem that has led me to tag the article as requiring expert attention.

The article notes that it uses material from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It appears that this material was merely copied and no attempt was made to update it. This makes the article (in detail) of doubtful quality.

There are references to countries that do not exist in their 1911 form. I have updated Ceylon to Sri Lanka, Holland to the Netherlands and the Australian colonies to Australia but not Upper Canada (I suspect the civil law references could be made to Quebec). Do acts of the Parliament in Westminster apply in any form to India, Ireland, or Ceylon? (And with regard to India, what about Pakistan and Bangla Desh).

The case law cited is from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. More recent cases may have altered or updated the principals cited. One example is that contracts under seal are meaningless in many common law jurisdiction now. (Contract doesn't mention them) I deleted most references to them or shipped them to notes.

The citations aren't "Blue Book". I edited their form slightly. The only thing I might see disagreement with is the deletion of Judge/Justice/Chancellor names in the citation except for the one case in which the article attaches significance to the author of the opinion. Since the UK no longer enjoys extra-territorial rights in Egypt, I doubt that "native cases" continue to have meaning.

The statutory law has the same problem. I have generally deleted statements about the changes nineteenth century statutes made to the law, but did not delete a couple of long quotes from statutes that may no longer be in force.

I linked the Uniform Commercial Code, but there is nothing in the article concerning its impact on this area of law in the United States.

The article is Anglocentric. I put what seemed to be mostly English law in that section, along with the statute of frauds, and eliminated statements that limited other discussion to England when they applied to most common law jurisdictions, but the extent of reliance on English statutes and cases was more appropriate in 1911 than in 2011. The civil law sections are Eurocentric as well.

I didn't know where to put Scotland. Isn't its law mostly civil rather than common? --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very helpful work on this. I agree that further input from an expert is needed, or at the very least some further editing with reference to more recent specialist publications. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal guarantee

The article doesn't appear to cover the notion of personal guarantee even though the term is widely used (even in Wikipedia):

Agreement that make one liable for one's own or a third party's debts or obligations. A personal guarantee signifies that the lender (obligee) can lay claim to the guarantor's assets in case of the borrower (obligor) default. It is equivalent of a signed blank check without a date. The obligee is generally not required to seek repayment first from the obligor's assets before going after guarantor's assets. The lender's actions are usually based on whose assets are easier to take control of and sell. Once signed, a personal guarantee can only be cancelled by the obligee.[1]

An arrangement in which a person becomes liable for the debts of another party, in case the other party fails to clear their dues on time. Can be regarded similar to a blank check that has been signed, but does not have a date.[2]

Possible other uses:

"On Monday, current President Waheed told the BBC that he would personally guarantee free elections." [3]

"Protesters say that corrupt elements of Mr. Akayev's government intercepted earlier payments and that the new president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, gave his personal guarantee that the compensation money would be paid in full." [4]

pgr94 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hồ Chí Minh 2402:9D80:311:EC1E:F466:CD73:A15:5D06 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]