Relationship Debt and Guarantees: Best Practice v Real Practice

Millbank, J; Lovric, J

Relationship Debt and Guarantees: Best Practice v Real Practice

Millbank, J

Lovric, J

Permalink

Publisher:: Thomson
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, 2004, 15 (2), pp. 89 - 115
Issue Date:: 2004-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (238.08 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Millbank, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8934-7945	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Lovric, J	en_US
dc.date.issued	2004-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, 2004, 15 (2), pp. 89 - 115	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1034-3040	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/10495
dc.description.abstract	Guarantee transactions have generated an enormous volume of litigation over the past 20 years in Australia and elsewhere. There have been numerous major reports referring to the problem of relationship debt in recent years as concern about guarantee transactions has grown. This article outlines the major findings of the first comprehensive Australian empirical research into the law and practices governing third party guarantees. The research was directed to finding out more about the experiences of the people who agree to guarantee the loans of others. Why do they sign on, how do they get into trouble in those transactions and what might have assisted them in avoiding such difficulties? Despite measures such as the Consumer Credit Code (1996) and the Code of Banking Practice (1993)(2003) , guarantee practice shows little evidence of what either the finance industry or consumer advocates would regard as best, or even adequate, practice.	en_US
dc.publisher	Thomson	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice	en_US
dc.title	Relationship Debt and Guarantees: Best Practice v Real Practice	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	15	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.for	1501 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HJ - Health Justice
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.volume	15	en_US

Abstract:

Guarantee transactions have generated an enormous volume of litigation over the past 20 years in Australia and elsewhere. There have been numerous major reports referring to the problem of relationship debt in recent years as concern about guarantee transactions has grown. This article outlines the major findings of the first comprehensive Australian empirical research into the law and practices governing third party guarantees. The research was directed to finding out more about the experiences of the people who agree to guarantee the loans of others. Why do they sign on, how do they get into trouble in those transactions and what might have assisted them in avoiding such difficulties? Despite measures such as the Consumer Credit Code (1996) and the Code of Banking Practice (1993)(2003) , guarantee practice shows little evidence of what either the finance industry or consumer advocates would regard as best, or even adequate, practice.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/10495