The execution surety, a mechanism that is often misunderstood by the general public, nevertheless represents a highly flexible personal guarantee. It is part of an arsenal of protections available to creditors, as we discussed in our a complete guide to creditors' guarantees in the law of obligations. Unlike more traditional sureties, this does not involve taking an asset as collateral, but obtaining a promise that a third party will perform a service. Understanding its subtleties is essential if you are to secure a contractual commitment effectively.
Definition and development of the execution portfolio
A promise to bear witness is an undertaking by a person, the promisor, to obtain the act of a third party for the benefit of a beneficiary. Since the 2016 reform of contract law, the Civil Code has enshrined this legal form in article 1204, presenting it in several ways. Traditionally, a distinction was made between a porte-fort de ratification, where the promisor undertakes that a third party will validate an act already performed, and a porte-fort d'exécution. The latter, which is of interest here, is a guarantee by which the promisor ensures that the third party will perform a specific obligation. Unlike mechanisms such as the passive solidarity or indivisibility of obligationsIn this case, the porte-fort does not create a joint debt but a personal obligation of result in respect of the acts of others.
Ratification and conclusion portfolios
The ratification bearer is the oldest form. A person negotiates and signs a deed on behalf of a third party without having a mandate to do so. To secure the transaction, he gives an undertaking that the third party will ratify the deed at a later date. If ratification takes place, the deed is validated retroactively, as if the third party had signed it himself from the outset. The conclusion bond is a variation: the promisor undertakes that a third party will agree to enter into a future contract. In both cases, the promisor's obligation is to obtain consent, i.e. an expression of the third party's will.
The performance bond: an atypical personal guarantee
Here, the object of the promise changes radically. The promisor no longer undertakes to obtain mere consent, but rather the actual performance of an obligation by the third party. For example, a parent company may undertake to ensure that its subsidiary performs a payment contract. The legal nature of this undertaking has given rise to heated debate. Is it a form of guarantee? This is a legitimate question, since in both cases the creditor is guaranteed payment if the principal debtor defaults. For a time, case law caused confusion by describing the performance bond as accessory, bringing it dangerously close to a surety bond.
However, the Cour de cassation has clarified its position. It now classifies the performance bond as an undertaking to perform, and more precisely as an obligation of result. In concrete terms, the promisor does not undertake to pay the third party's debt, but to ensure that the third party pays it. It is a personal and autonomous obligation, distinct from the principal debt. This classification has important practical consequences, particularly with regard to the applicable formalities and the nature of the penalty in the event of default.
Conditions for the validity of the porte-fort
Like any other contract, a porte-fort must comply with the general conditions for the validity of agreements (consent, capacity, lawful and certain content). However, its nature as a consensual contract gives it great flexibility. It is not subject to any particular formalities for its validity, unlike a surety bond, which requires a precise handwritten statement. A simple clause in a contract may be enough to create a valid surety undertaking. Proof of this undertaking may be provided by any means in commercial matters, but will require a written document in civil matters if the amount at stake exceeds the legal threshold. Clear drafting is therefore essential to avoid any ambiguity as to the nature and extent of the promisor's obligation.
The consent of the parties
A porte-fort is a contract between the promisor (the person making the promise) and the beneficiary (the creditor of the principal obligation). The consent of both parties is therefore essential. The promisor must have a clear and unequivocal intention to undertake personally to obtain the third party's act. The beneficiary, for his part, must accept the promise. On the other hand, the consent of the third party whose act is promised is not at all required for the validity of the contract. He is, by definition, a third party to the agreement. His intervention will only be decisive for the performance of the promise, and therefore for the release of the promisor.
The purpose of the porte-fort: the act of a third party
The object of the promisor's undertaking is an obligation to do: to obtain the promised act from the third party. This "fact" may be of various kinds. It may be a ratification, the conclusion of a contract or, in the case of a performance bond, the performance of a service (paying a sum of money, delivering a good, performing a service). The obligation incumbent on the promisor is an obligation of result. This means that the promisor not only undertakes to do his best to ensure that the third party performs, but also guarantees the result itself. The mere failure of the third party to perform the promised act is sufficient to engage the liability of the promisor, without it being necessary to prove any fault on his part in his dealings with the third party.
The effects of the execution surety
The implementation of a performance bond has distinct consequences for each party: the promisor, the promisee and the third party whose act is promised. These effects differ from those of other instruments such as the compensation or simple delegationwhich organise the transfer or extinguishment of debts. Here, the dynamic is based on whether or not an event has occurred by a person outside the initial collateral agreement.
Releasing the promisor
The promisor's obligation is an obligation of result. As a result, he is fully discharged as soon as the third party performs the promised act. If the third party performs the principal obligation (for example, if he pays the invoice due), the promisee's obligation is automatically extinguished. The promisor has fulfilled his mission: he has obtained the result expected by the beneficiary. The promisor no longer has any obligation, and the surety agreement has achieved its objective. His undertaking was to guarantee the successful completion of the transaction, and now that the transaction has taken place, his guarantee no longer serves any purpose.
Penalties in the event of non-performance by the third party
What happens if the third party fails to perform? This is where the guarantee comes into its own for the beneficiary. If the third party fails to perform what has been promised, the promisor's obligation of result is not fulfilled. The promisor then incurs contractual liability. He cannot exonerate himself by proving that he did everything possible to convince the third party (for example, by sending reminders). The failure of the third party alone is sufficient to constitute non-performance by the surety. The penalty is that the promisor is ordered to pay damages. The amount of this compensation is in principle intended to make good all the loss suffered by the beneficiary as a result of the third party's failure to perform, and is often close to the amount of the principal obligation not performed.
Recourse by the promisor against the third party after payment
The promisor who has indemnified the beneficiary does not have to bear the final burden of the debt. He has recourse against the defaulting third party, i.e. the principal debtor. He may exercise a subrogatory recourse, based on article 1346 of the Civil Code. By paying the compensation, it is subrogated to the rights of the creditor (the beneficiary) against the debtor (the third party). In practical terms, he can claim from the third party what he has paid in his place. Depending on the nature of his relationship with the third party, he may also have a personal recourse, for example based on a contract of agency or business management, if the conditions are met.
The performance bond is a highly flexible tool for securing contracts, suitable for many situations where traditional guarantees are not feasible. The fact that it is an independent undertaking to perform clearly distinguishes it from a surety bond and gives it its own specific regime. However, its effectiveness depends entirely on the clause being drafted precisely and unambiguously. Poor wording can lead to harmful reclassifications or uncertainties. The assistance of a lawyer is essential when setting up such a guarantee or analysing the scope of a surety undertaking. Our lawyers specialising in security and guarantee law are available to help you secure your contractual relations.
Sources
- Civil Code: article 1204 (Porte-fort promise)
- Civil Code: articles 1313 to 1320 (Solidarity and indivisibility)
- Civil Code: articles 1341 to 1352-9 (General system of obligations)
EN 
FR