As the borrower, can I prevent my loan guarantor/co-signer from being released from the guarantee? Inspired by the question My co-borrower wants her name removed from a 5 year mortgage contract : Assume I am the debtor of a loan, and someone else agreed to guarantee/co-sign the loan for me. If the guarantor later wants to be released from the guarantee, and the lender agrees, can I (as the debtor) prevent that release? On the one hand, as far as I understand, a loan guarantee is an agreement between the lender and the guarantor. So as the borrower I am not part of the agreement, and therefore I would assume I do not get a say in how it is handled. On the other hand, I may wish for the guarantee to continue, for example because I get better rates, or because I hope the creditor will go after the guarantee's money instead of after me. Is this a sufficient reason to ask for the guarantee to continue? I am interested in answers for different jurisdictions, particularly for Germany.
UK-based answer: In essence there are two separate agreements: A loan agreement between the borrower and the lender A guarantee agreement between the guarantor and the lender. To answer your question, both parties in the 2nd (guarantee) agreement, can choose to terminate the guarantee contract. This is called discharge by agreement, and requires consent by both parties and consideration (i.e payment, a nominal fee would be enough) Moving on with your question, you as a third party are not privy (directly involved) in the guarantee agreement, you are only involved in the original loan agreement, and therefore you cannot force them to follow the agreement. In any case, even if they don't dissolve the guarantee agreement, if you are unable to pay the loan, the lender can always go for you first, and if you don't have enough money, the lender can go for the guarantor for the rest of the balance.
In German Law you need to give your agreement ("Willenserklärung") to a contract or in this case terms of service. This is done by telling the other part. In some cases this can also be implied by an action (example: putting your bottle of beer onto the cashiers table is an offer to buy this bottle). As a second criteria a "Willenserklärung" needs to be the exact will of the part that declares its will (the website user in this case) §§ 133, 157 BGB or that the other side (you) could only see so (not the case here as this mainly speaks of content). If you visit a website and there are terms of services, the "Willenserklärung" is only given when the user read and agreed to the terms. If he did not, the terms of service are not applied until the user agrees to them. So I would recommend to block the website until the user agreed (overlay) as you need to proof he did when in court. Additionally there are so called AGB's in Germany. Those are contracts that are used or planed for many (more than 3) uses and set by one side (you). This may apply here, so you need to follow a lot of other rules like making sure the user had access and agreed, then there are many content restrictions and so on... I recommend consulting a German Lawyer specialized on this topic as this is very complex and includes other German laws for Media too, depending on the content of your site and terms. Also note that everything said is only based on my own knowledge and can not be used as safe legal source.
Short Answer Does a secured loan create obligations beyond the collateral assets? The vast majority of the time it does. Long Answer The default rule is that security interests in assets other than real property is a recourse debt under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (a model statute that individual states can enact voluntarily) and the applicable common law (which is uniform almost everyplace except Louisiana and Puerto Rico). This means that deficiency judgments are allowed if the seized collateral is insufficient to pay the loan in full. It also means that the lender can sue on the debt without foreclosing the collateral at all if the lender wishes to do so. A note and security agreement can be made expressly &quot;non-recourse&quot; which limits recovery to seizure of the collateral and precludes a suit on the debt itself. A secured loan can also become non-recourse if the unsecured debt is discharged in bankruptcy, or if the deadline for filing a claim expires in a probate case. Neither bankruptcy nor the probate claims process extinguish the rights of a secured creditor in the collateral, even if the right to bring a suit on the debt itself is terminated. Special tax rules (that, in substance, disallow tax losses with no economic effect) apply to non-recourse debts (especially the special case of limited liability companies which are taxed as general partnerships but subject to special non-recourse debt rules). When filing a claim in bankruptcy, if the collateral is worth less than the debt, two claims must be filed. One secured claim in an amount equal to the value of the collateral and a second unsecured claim in the amount by which the debt exceeds the value of the collateral. In the case of secured debts in real property, most states mirror the personal property rule (which is very close to Uniform since every state, territory and district in the U.S. had adopted Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code governing security interests in property other than real estate). But in a few states (including California), security interests in owner occupied residential real estate (a.k.a. mortgages, liens, encumbrances, or deeds of trust) are truly, or in practice are, effectively non-recourse. Be aware also that there are a handful of isolated, mostly state specific but some federal exceptions. The most pertinent federal exception is for swap agreements and certain other kinds of derivatives (exceptions which are found primarily in the bankruptcy code) involving setoffs. There is a section of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 involving &quot;strict settlements&quot; that rarely applies except in pawn arrangements. There are also a number of statutory liens (mostly perfected by possession of the collateral rather than by a UCC-1 financing statement) that create a security interest in collateral by operation of law without a signed security agreement that are sometimes non-recourse (e.g. auto mechanic's liens in selected states).
You have a contract - they have fulfilled their obligation (they paid you), if you do not fulfil their obligation (not to post it online) then you are in breach of the contract. Your obligation continues even if you gift the money back to them. If you breach the contract then they can sue you for the damage that they suffer. Presumably this would be damage to their reputation and for a public figure this could run into millions of dollars. In demanding additional money from them beyond what you are legally entitled to you are, at least, flirting with the crime of extortion/blackmail. This would not be a matter for them to sue you for, it would be a matter for the DA to prosecute if they chose to make a complaint. There doesn't seem to be a defamation issue here because you are not stating anything that isn't true. Now, the extent of the agreement appears to prohibit you posting it on the internet, however, the spirit of the agreement is that you will keep the information secret in all respects - that is likely how a court would look at it. Of course, if someone does steal the information from you then you haven't broken the agreement but you would probably have to prove that it was stolen when they sue you.
If I did not sign promotion bonus document, my career would be over. Is this duress? No. The premise is hardly true or even logical, and what you describe falls short of duress. Not every imbalance of bargain power implies duress. First, it seems that you could have declined the bonus, thereby preempting the sanction/remedy for leaving within 12 months. Second, it seems hard to prove (and unrealistic) that your career would have been over if you refused to sign the document. The employer can easily refute that allegation by pointing out that there are many others who did not sign that employer's document and yet work elsewhere as investment bankers. You would need certain, additional context to reasonably allow for a conclusion that your career altogether depends on what happens with this single entity. Third, your mention that "the bonus mitigates the horrendous weekly hours" reinforces the idea that signing the document was your preference (namely, for the purpose of obtaining some additional, non-compulsory stimulus) rather than employer-inflicted duress. The rationale and decision for acceptance of those conditions reflects that you knowingly exercised your freedom of contract. A party is not entitled to void a contract only because he belatedly changed his mind about conditions of which he was aware beforehand.
There is no such thing as an "implicit" out clause in a contract like this. The onus was clearly on them to consider all the facts before agreeing to lock in an interest rate. The facts have not changed since the lock and you did not misrepresent the facts so they should honor their agreement or pay you damages. Your options are to take the deal, get a new deal elsewhere or take them to court to enforce the deal or recover damages. Those aren't particularly great options but that's the situation.
Consult a lawyer These issues are quite common and their impact depends on your jurisdiction (usually local governments handle this) and the attitude of your potential lenders/buyers. In most cases, local governments have the power, in extremis, of ordering the demolition of unpermitted work. However, this is normally done only when the work is irredeemably unsafe or adversely affects the amenity of neighbours. More common might be an order to make good any defective work, possibly to current rather than historical codes after which they will retroactively grant the permissions. Some lenders will refuse to lend if there are unpermitted works. Others will only lend against the unimproved land value less the cost of demolition. The same is true of insurers. As for buyers, well, its making you stop and think, isn't it? Common solutions are to make your offer contingent on the current owner cleaning all this up before you close or offering less to cover the risks you are assuming. This may cause you to miss the property but that's the risk you run.
You owe money if there is a contract obliging you to pay. Whether you receive what you pay for (e.g. services) only affects your stance when suing for non-performance/damages; your obligation to pay still stands until the court decides it does not (or there is a mutual agreement to discharge the contract). It is irrelevant whether the original payment method still works or not. If it does not but you still owe money — you have to pay. The ability to turn the credit card off is just a handy feature. It does not affect your contractual obligations in any way except for when the terms explicitly provide for it (like automatic cancelling subscription when payment method fails).