Substitution of parties in the obligation and surety ship: contradictions in the construction of a solidary plurality of persons (part 1)

Introduction: the authors conducted a study of the differentiation of the norms on surety and substitution of parties in the obligation due to the lack of their clear regulation by the legislator. The paper discusses the concepts of co-suretyship and individual suretyship, reveals their similarities and differences. The authors highlighted the problems of applying the rules on the substitution of parties in the obligation and the responsibility of the surety and also suggested the ways to resolve them. The purpose of the study is to develop some proposals for improving the institution of suretyship and bringing it into line with the norms on the substitution of parties in an obligation. Methods: the study used historical, comparative law, logical research methods, as well as the method of the literal and broad interpretation of normative legal acts and court decisions. Results: the civil law doctrine of the institute of suretyship and co-suretyship was supplemented, the legal position of suretyship in the proper performance of its obligations for the debtor was determined from the standpoint of the science of civil law. Conclusions: according to the results of the study, it is proposed to amend the current legislation and completely exclude from it the provisions on the independent regulation of “joint suretyship”, i.e. to recognize Part 3 of Article 363 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as invalid. The provisions developed by the authors will simplify and streamline the law enforcement practice in the issues under consideration.