The concept can be explained by using a simple example involving three parties. Party A purchases an asset from Party B on a deferred payment basis. Party B requires some assurances that Party A will make the required payments. Party C provides Party B such assurances that in the event Party A defaults on payments to Party B, Party C will make good all losses.
This arrangement can also be modified to where Party A commits to deliver certain goods in the future to Party B, for which Party A has already taken the sale price, like in salaam and istisna contracts. Party C stands in on Party A's behalf that in the event Party A does not fulfill his or her obligations, Party C will do so by providing the required goods or making good the losses incurred by Party B.
Let's assume Party A owes Party B a deferred payment of $150,000, to be made in lump sum in 90 days. Party A arranges for Party C to be a guarantor for $150,000. Now Party B has recourse to Party C in the event that Party A defaults. Party A does default on the payments due to Party B in 90 days, and Party C makes good the payment of $150,000 owed to Party B.
A question arises now: Does Party C have recourse to Party A to ...
Become an O’Reilly member and get unlimited access to this title plus top books and audiobooks from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers, thousands of courses curated by job role, 150+ live events each month, and much more.
