Glossary entry

Spanish term or phrase:

que haya podido contraer el avalado con el beneficiario del aval

English translation:

that the guaranteed party may have contracted with the guarantee beneficiary

    The asker opted for community grading. The question was closed on 2018-04-26 08:54:08 based on peer agreement (or, if there were too few peer comments, asker preference.)
Apr 22, 2018 13:10
6 yrs ago
1 viewer *
Spanish term

que haya podido contraer el avalado con el beneficiario del aval

Spanish to English Bus/Financial Business/Commerce (general) Transfer pricing master file
Hi folks,

This is part of a master file on transfer pricing for a Spanish business group that fulfills a legal disclosure obligation. It's pretty straightforward, but in this sentence, I don't understand the difference between the "avalado" (I have guarantee holder) and the "beneficiario del aval". Any help is appreciated!

La sociedad avalista responde de forma solidaria con su patrimonio actual y futuro de las deudas vencidas y no liquidadas que haya podido contraer el avalado con el beneficiario del aval.

What I have so far (which doesn't make much sense to me):

The guarantor company is jointly and severally liable for covering with current and future assets any unsettled and overdue debts that the guarantee holder may have incurred with the beneficiary of the guarantee.

Discussion

Robert Carter Apr 24, 2018:
@Francois The concept of an "aval" is broader than just loans. For example, to rent a property in Mexico, a prospective tenant (who will be the "avalado" in the relationship) generally needs a guarantor ("avalista") to sign an "aval" (making them jointly and severally liable for payment should the tenant default on the rent or damage the property). The beneficiary of the "aval" is therefore the landlord.

Your rendering is a complete mistranslation of the phrase in question here. You have the "avalado" as the guarantee's beneficiary and the "beneficiario del aval" as the "benefit of a guarantee" because you believe "beneficiario" to be a mistake, whereas the word "beneficiario" actually makes perfect sense here.

As for the verb, again I must agree with Charles: it should be "may have" (literally "may have been able to"), not "would have".
Francois Boye Apr 23, 2018:
'So of course it benefits from it': this is a metaphor! Banks make money out of their loans. They are not party to the negotiation between guarantors and guaranteed parties. They just lend money to trustworthy clients, be they guaranteed or not!
Charles Davis Apr 23, 2018:
Thanks, Robert Yes, exactly. The triple distinction is obvious and amply documented: any loan guarantee must involve a borrower/debtor, a lender/creditor and a guarantor.

Assuming the lender/creditor is a bank, as it often will be, then if the debtor defaults, the bank calls in the guarantee. So of course it benefits from it.
Robert Carter Apr 23, 2018:
@Francois In this kind of relationship there is a creditor, a debtor and a guarantor. Therefore, the party that benefits from the guarantee (when enforced), i.e., the payee of the guarantee, is the creditor.

For example, a bank or lender (the "beneficiario del aval" or "beneficiary of the guarantee") gives me a loan on the understanding that I (the "principal obligor" or "avalado") am providing it with a guarantee ("aval") of repayment or collateral from a third party (the "guarantor" or "avalista").
Francois Boye Apr 23, 2018:
I am sorry, guys! A bank does not benefit from a guarantee! A bank just requires that its clients be trustworthy. IF they are not, it's their job to find guarantors to be eligible to credit. THE triple distinction by C. Davis is WRONG!

Proposed translations

+4
10 hrs
Selected

that the guaranteed party may have contracted with the guarantee beneficiary

As I understand it, the "avalista" is the guarantor (the party that provides the guarantee or surety), the "avalado" is the guaranteed party (i.e., the secured debtor, whose debt is covered by the guarantee), and the "beneficiario" is the creditor, the party to which the guarantee is paid if the guaranteed party fails to meet its obligations.

This is about Polish law:

"A 'corporate guarantee' is a promise by a third party (the guarantor) to meet the obligations of the guaranteed party to the beneficiary in the event that the guaranteed party fails to meet its obligations."
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Corporate-...

And this is about Spanish law:

"What happens if the beneficiary of a bank guarantee or other surety decides to enforce it against a payment default by a debtor who has been declared insolvent? This is a crucial question not only for the beneficiary of the guarantee but also the granter thereof – in many cases a financial institution. Neither one nor the other should be unaware of the consequences if their debtor and guaranteed party, respectively, is declared to be insolvent."
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=20194

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs (2018-04-23 01:48:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

In view of François's comment, I think we need to clarify that the "beneficiario" here is the creditor, not the debtor: the party that the guarantee will be paid to if the debtor defaults.

Here's a nice, simple explanation of the Spanish terms:

" ¿Qué partes intervienen en un aval?
Las partes que intervienen son las siguientes:
Avalado: Es la persona que necesita del aval. Es quien quiere arrendar, comprar un bien, etc. y le exigen una garantía de cumplimiento por medio de un aval.
Avalista: es quien garantiza por medio del aval, y ante el beneficiario (arrendador, banco, etc.), que a lo que se ha comprometido el avalado se va a cumplir.
Beneficiario del aval: es ese arrendador, ese banco, esa administración pública, etc. que ha solicitado al avalado la presentación de un aval para asegurarse que el avalado cumplirá sus obligaciones."
http://www.edufinet.com/edufinext/index.php/avales/119-que-p...
Peer comment(s):

neutral Francois Boye : Finance does not work that way! THe guarantor is not a credit provider. Instead, he /she substitutes for the guarantee beneficiary if he/she defaults//the beneficiary is the one who incurs a debt/debts
2 hrs
I did not say that guarantors provide credit; I said they provide guarantees or sureties. Guarantors substitute for the debtor (the guaranteed party), not the beneficiary. // No, the "beneficiario de la garantía" here is the lender, not the borrower.
agree Robert Carter : Absolutely.
5 hrs
Thanks, Robert!
agree AllegroTrans
11 hrs
Thanks, Chris!
agree Andy Watkinson
15 hrs
Thanks, Andy :-)
agree Manuel Cedeño Berrueta
20 hrs
Thanks, Manuel :-)
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "It makes total sense that the beneficiary of the guarantee is the lender, and those are really the only three parties involved in this kind of transaction (guarantor, guarantee holder, lender). Thank you. "
-1
3 hrs

that the guarantee beneficiary would have incurred with the benefit of a guarantee.

Erratum: BENEFICIO DEL AVAL instead of 'beneficiario del aval'

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2018-04-22 18:48:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Erratum: THE BENEFIT OF THE GUARANTEE" instead of 'the benefit of a guarantee'

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2018-04-22 20:50:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

You can incur debts with the benefit of a guarantee if you can find a guarantor to provide you with the financial trustworthiness you don't have (your debts will be repaid by your guarantor if you cannot pay).

As to the subjunctive tense in Spanish, it is necessary in a relative (subordinate) clause to express a future or a conditional tense in French or English.
Peer comment(s):

neutral AllegroTrans : How does anyone incur debts "with the benefit of a guarantee"? Does that make sense? And what justification is there for the verb tense you have suggested?/// have another look at the meaning of "beneficiario"
4 hrs
see above!
disagree Robert Carter : Charles’ answer is right, this is wrong in various ways.
12 hrs
Something went wrong...
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search