Sign the blank contract, and the guarantor shall bear the responsibility.

　　Recently, the Second Financial Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province concluded a financial loan contract case, and the guarantor’s defense that the Guarantee Contract he signed was a blank contract and should not bear the guarantee responsibility was not accepted by the court. In the end, the court ordered the guarantor to bear joint liability for the principal and interest of the loan involved on the grounds that signing a blank contract was regarded as unlimited authorization for the contents of the contract.

　　In April 2018, Zheng signed a "Loan Contract for Household Consumption" with a bank, stipulating that the loan amount is 150,000 yuan, and the purpose of the loan is decoration. The loan period is 24 installments, and the monthly interest rate is 1.7%. If the debtor fails to repay in full and on time, the lender has the right to announce that all or part of the debts under this contract will expire immediately at any time. Song signed a "guarantee contract" with a bank, promising to bear joint and several repayment responsibilities for the above loans.

　　After signing the above contract, a bank issued a loan of 150,000 yuan to Zheng, but it failed to repay it in full and on time. As of March 2019, Zheng’s unpaid principal was 117,854.39 yuan, interest was 9,117.43 yuan, and penalty interest was 2,120.18 yuan, so a bank sued Zheng and Song to the court.

　　During the trial, the defendant Song argued that in the Guarantee Contract, except for the signature, seal and ID number of the signature place, other contents including the scope and duration of guarantee were filled in by others afterwards. As the Guarantee Contract is a blank contract, it should not bear any responsibility. Because the handwriting in the contract obviously does not match the writing characteristics of the contractor, a bank did not deny filling in other contents of the contract on behalf of the contractor afterwards.

　　During the trial, the two sides had a heated debate on whether the guarantee act was legally effective.

　　A bank of the plaintiff believes that the guarantee act has legal effect. Song, the guarantor, knows that the key contents in the guarantee contract are still blank, and submits the contract with blank contents to the other party of the contract, which shall be regarded as unlimited authorization for the guarantees in the contract contents, and the other party of the contract can fill in the corresponding contents in the blank parts. Therefore, Song should bear joint and several liability for guarantee.

　　The defendant Song believes that the guarantee behavior has no legal effect. The blank contract does not meet the formal requirements of the contract stipulated by law, and the relevant contents of the contract, including the scope of guarantee and the duration of guarantee, are filled in by others afterwards. The two sides failed to reach an agreement on this, so Song does not assume any responsibility.

　　After the trial, the court held that the guarantor Song did not provide evidence to prove that there were legal reasons such as fraud and coercion when signing the contract, so the contract should be considered as the true intention of both parties and valid according to law. The guarantor Song signed and sealed the blank guarantee contract, and the guarantee behavior took legal effect and should bear joint and several guarantee responsibilities. The Second Financial Court of Nanchang made the above judgment according to law.

　　Signing a blank contract can be regarded as unlimited authorization.

　　After the court, the judge introduced that the Supreme People’s Court publicly released a similar case in October 2018 regarding the validity of signing a blank contract. "(2018) Supreme People’s Republic of China Shen No.3112", "Civil Ruling on retrial review and trial supervision of guarantee contract disputes by Lei Hongming and Liang Jianxue", the Supreme People’s Court thinks: "If the retrial applicant Lei Hongming gives the contract with blank contents to the opposite party, it shall be regarded as unlimited authorization for the contract contents including the guarantee items in the Guarantee Contract, and the opposite party can fill in the corresponding contents in the blank part."

　　In this case, when the contract was signed, there was no evidence of fraud or coercion. Signing a blank contract shall be regarded as unlimited authorization for the contents of the contract. As a civil subject with full capacity for civil conduct, the guarantor Song should be responsible for his signature and stamping, especially when signing and stamping a blank contract, he should foresee and bear higher risks. Now the guarantor Song knows that the key content in the guarantee contract is still blank, and he takes a indifferent attitude towards the corresponding legal risks, which should be regarded as unlimited authorization for the guarantee scope and guarantee period in the Guarantee Contract, and the other party of the contract can fill in the corresponding content in the blank part. In order to protect the stability and convenience of the transaction. In civil acts, signing and stamping means commitment. If there is a blank in a contract clause when signing and stamping, it should generally be presumed that the signing and stamping party already knows the content of the clause. From the principle of "encouraging transactions" and maintaining the stability and convenience of transactions, it should also be regarded as the signing and stamping party authorizing the other party to fill in relevant clauses in the contract. Accordingly, the court made the above judgment.

　　It can be seen that there are significant legal risks in signing blank contracts. When signing relevant contracts, the public should carefully examine the contents of the contract, read the text of the contract carefully, and sign carefully on the premise that they fully understand the rights and obligations of both parties. If there are blank clauses in the contract, both parties shall reach an agreement through further consultation and fill in the contract completely. If there is no agreement on some terms for the time being, it is better not to sign it than to sign a blank contract. It should be noted that signing a blank contract means infinitely authorizing the other party to fill in the corresponding contents in the blank part, which is equivalent to handing over their contractual rights, resulting in huge losses and having to pay the bill themselves.