Should becomes a simple obligation to deliver #4 uh at that point in time will not apply the we will not apply

the rules on alternative

obligations we will apply the rules and simple obligations if he continues to destroy the last one #4 then what is the right of the creditor
that creditor is entitled to damages counted on the basis of the value of the last one looks it follows the principle that since it has become
a simple obligation what the creditor is entitled to receive in the form of damages would be the value of the last one that was lost
Conversely if the last one was destroyed due to fortuitous events then the debtor has no liability because it has been converted to a
simple obligation and the loss or total destruction of a property on the basis of a fortuitous event certainly will excuse the better from the
performance on the other hand it is also possible that these are rare occurrences that the creditor may prevent the fulfillment of the
obligation by eradicating all the choices given to the debtor of course together like that but if the debtor is there a few properties that are
left in the same example you have 1/2 three and four uh the credit or destroy is number one and #2 what choices would better have
since he has the right to make pictures if he's a nice guy he will choose between #3 and #4 but it is not the not so nice guy and he wants
to make it difficult for for the credit are then he will choose one or two which were destroyed by the creditor and therefore he will ask for
resolution or cancellation of the obligation remember it said that order was the obligation so if there is any part of the credit or that
destroys any of these choices he will choose the one that has been destroyed and asked for a solution or cancellation so that he will have
no liability plus damages on the basis of the act of the credit are in destroying his right to make a choice again for purposes of clarity the
liability of the person to the owner of the property that he destroys without any authority is totally separate and distinct from our
discussion here because the principle is anyone who destroys the property belonging to another without justifiable cause or without any
authority is liable to the owner for the value of that property plus other damages this is not what we're talking of we're just talking of the
effect on the right of choice of the data if everything has been lost due to the act of the creditor then certainly as a debtor I will ask for
cancellation or resolution of the obligation on the basis of bridge and then in which case I will also ask for that it would just make some
fortuitous events the better again the same example you have 1/2 three and four 1/2 and three were lost due to fortuitous events then
obviously the last one is going to be a simple obligation and of course you will you will apply the same discussions that we have in so far
simple obligations or concern if there are two that are not been affected by fortuitous events then the letter will simply just choose any of
the two he obviously cannot choose the one that has been destroyed due to fortuitous events because that's not the fault of anyone and if
all of them are extinguished due to the fault due to fortuitous events obviously the obligation is considered as extinguish so you can have
all sorts of combinations I think it's really some of the textbooks there are lot of permutations on what is destroyed first second 3rd and
4th but you do this for know logically and if you have the right of choice for as long as you live at least one you're OK and what is left is
supposed to be converted into a simple obligation and if the object of that simple obligation is lost due to fortuitous events and the
obligation is considered extinguish I just want to warn you that I've seen one or two commentators that save the last one is lost due to for
two to seven the creditor is entitled to recover damages based on the last one that was destroyed by the debtor I don't think we can agree
with that be cause if he has the right to make a choice the act of destruction is considered as some of choice and if there is still one left
that becomes a simple obligation and if it is a simple obligation and it is lost due to fortuitous events then obviously the obligation is
considered extinguish as far as creditors choice is concerned it is rare to give the right to make a choice to the creditor but on the basis of
stipulation that right can be given to the credit are so if you go back to the same situation you have accreditor who is given the right to
make a choice and then properties which are covered by the choices are destroyed either to the fault of the better through the creditors
at or through fortuitous events in their loss due to the debtors act and the debtor does not have the right of choice in this instance
because it has been given to the credit are you have possibilities again you have 1234 one and two are destroyed by the act of the debtors
three and four remains So what can the credit of choose again if he is a nice credit or he will just choose from the remaining but it is not
so nice he will choose from one or two and in which case he will choose damages because it can no longer be delivered to him he will you
ask for damages based on the value of the property that he has chosen and that has been destroyed by the debtor if all are lost or this
completely case of total loss and they're all due to the debtors act then the creditor can choose from the value of any of the properties on
the argument that he could have chosen any of the four which were all destroyed by the debtor even this accreditors up that causes the
total loss of the property which are covered under the alternatives remember he has the right to make a choice the act of destruction and
eradicating some or one of those in the list is considered as an act of choice and therefore be since he has destroyed the rest he's right of
choice has been limited to only those that are remaining and if there's only one remaining that means that is his choice and once all of
them are lost due to the fall of the creditor he did not leave anyone the debtors application is extinguished because there is nothing more
for the debtor to be able to do in order to comply with this obligation since they have all been totally lost due to the fault of the creditor if
it is due to fortuitous events again it's the same thing if there are some remaining the credit are we choose from the remaining he has no
right to choose those that have been lost due to fortuitous events and if all of them are lost due to fortuitous events obviously the
obligation is considered extinguish when you talk about the those that where the right of choice is given to a third person you just do the
combination based on these suits OK so that's the case of alternative obligations remember only one of them will be sufficient or the
delivery or performance of any of those alternatives would be sufficient to extinguish the obligation then we have what we call
facultative obligations what are facultative obligations they are obligations were really only have one per session you have one per
station and you have of course a substitute or substitutes that will take the place of the principle for station if it is so chosen by the
network you have to remember that indication facultative obligation it is the debtor and debtor alone who can make the substitution
right to make the substitution even by stipulation is not granted to the creditor or the third person on the other hand as you compare it
with alternative obligations the right to make a choice can be given to the credit are provided of course there is stipulation agreed upon
between the parties so you only have one principle crustation here technically you're not really talking about multiple frustrations
because there's only one per session and that is the obligation if the obligation which is the principle one is lost or destroyed due to
fortuitous events the obligation is extinguished you do not elevate the substitute to become principle if the obligation has already been
extinguished as a result of the loss or total destruction due to fortuitous events if the principle is extinguished then the substitutes are
also extinguished on the other hand what happens if it is the substitute that has been a loss or totally destroyed it really does not affect
the operation for as long as the principle for station remains that principle for station has to be done delivered or accomplish in order to
extinguish the obligation ah when we talk about lost here that that will not affect the obligation we are of course referring to loss or
destruction due to fortuitous events because certainly if the loss is due to the fault of the debtor then he may be liable for certain
damages as a result of but here we also talk about those instances that are lost due to fortuitous events so that should leave us and
discuss with the discussion of multiple parties now we're talking about people were talking about parties whether you're talking of civil
or natural persons there just persons not anything to do with the object or the presentation include involved in the obligation this
classification involves of course the classification between what we call joint that solidaria application it has nothing to do with the object
it has something to do with the liability or the credit or the right to collect of any of the parties so it's other liability or credit that is
involved here it is not that it does not involve the object it does not involve the police station required to be done in the options of any
stipulation or any law that creates solidarity liability or credit liability is always considered as joint whether it is on the side of the better
or on the side of the creditor that credit will still be considered as shown solidarity liability or solidarity credit requires either a
stipulation or law to create the solidarity liability but a solidarity right to collect credit in a joint obligation actually this is that more
simple one in a joint obligation or credit you just divide the obligation into as many debtors and creditors that there are I said general
room in the absence of any stipulation the sharing among the joint debtors or the right to collect among the joint creditors is always
equal but that will also have to yield to a stipulation on the sharing so this one you have a stipulation on the share when I say stipulation
on sharing you have a stipulation on the sharing but no stipulation with respect to whether it is joint or solidarity in which case it will be
considered as joint OK in a joint obligation or credit rule ish it's to each is own I am not my brothers keeper I do not have anything to do
with my code actors or meiko creditors I stand on my own and I don't care what happens to the rest they may be dead they may be
insolvent they may not be able to pay their obligation it will not affect my obligation as a joint better in the same way accreditor does not
have anything to do with his other creditors if it is a case of joint credit is only concerned with share never mind what happens to the
share of the others so if you go through example say you have three daughters and three creditors no stipulation with respect to the
liability of the credit of the parties involved so the presumption is this is a joint obligation on the part of the debtor and this is a joint
credit on the part of the creditors so let's assume you have three and three on the side the obligation is yeah we lawyers are not good in
accounting so let's just say three batters three creditors the amount of the obligation is 300,000 if you use a principle that you just divide
it into as many debtors and creditors there are each of the joint better is liable to pay only 100,000 pesos each and each of the joint
creditor is entitled to collect only 1000 pesos each 100,000 pesos each is there a requirement of any matching so let's say you have
joined vectors AB&C join crediters CD&E if I were a my liability is only 100,000 the same way that B&C would only be liable for 100,000
on the other side on the side of the creditors Dene would only be entitled to collect 100,000 versus there's a lot to talk about Maddie
having to go after a an E going after B&E going after see there's no such thing the only rule is for as long as the joint debtor is not required
to pay more than his 100,000 is alright cannot it can be from anyone and if you talk about the credit are each of the joint creditors can
demand payment of the 100,000 whether he wants to collect from a B or C really doesn't matter for as long as it is not the demand and
collect more than 100,000 pesos so if you were a credit or D you are a joint credit are they can ask 50,000 from a 50,000 from B but after
that is done or he can ask for 330 three 1333 from each of them it really doesn't matter or he can even ask the 100,000 even from just 8
the rule is for as long as you get your share your done you cannot proceed against any of the other debtors anymore Conversely on the
side of the debtors for as long as you have paid already 100,000 to any of the joint Peppers at joint creditors you're done you're out
you've already accomplished an you have completed your obligation so no matching you know you don't say a paste be be based to Ian
and see page 2D there is no such rule but for as long as you are not given the right to collect more than your share as accreditor and you
are not required to pay more than your share so that were we do have compliance with the requirements it is possible but the number of
joint debtors and the number of joint credit creditors are not equal in many cases you really just have one credit or an you have maybe
several contractors OK so it's easy because then your one credit are consumed all three for their own share of 100,000 each but
supposing you have OK let's let's do a little bit of computation if you do a debt of 300,000 pesos you have three joint debtors and you
have the two creditors what happens the two creditors would be entitled only to 150,000 each each of the joint debtors will be liable only
for 100,000 each so how does it work up so if you're accreditor I joined credit are you one of two you're right is to collect 150,000 pesos
what is your choice you can choose to proceed against all the joint debtors and ask for 100 four 50,000 pesos each OK and the other
creditor will ask for also well he has no more choice at that point because the 50,000 has been paid by each of the joint death or so the
first credit are these choice would of course be also collect 50,000 from each it is also possible that the first credit are who makes a
demand because it's first the man that will have to be satisfied consume a for 100,000 and consume before 50 1000 so what's left of the
second creditor second credit or can ask for 50,000 from B and 100,000 from C so it is really just computing it on the basis of the
maximum liability of the joint better and the maximum credit of a joint credit are but I mean to me if you look at join obligations and joint
credit this is the impersonal one we don't care we don't even have to know each other and whatever happens the insolvency of any of the
joint debtors will not affect the share of the other debtors so if she becomes insolvent in that example A&B will still be liable only for
100,000 pesos each if she dies A&B will not increase the share this is the the creditors will have to go after the heirs of C in the event that
they said that the survives the death of the debt so that's the way it works out it's it's really uncomplicated that's why in the event of any
stipulation between and among the parties the rule is it is a joint obligation on the part of the debtors and I joined credit on the part of
several crediters obviously for this principle of join us solidarity Obligations of credit to work you need at least at two debtors or at least
two creditors or at least two debtors and creditors if you have one data one credit or forget about this rule there's no need to determine
the liability because the liabilities obviously for the whole amount of the obligation and the credit is for the full amount of the obligation
so let's talk about solidarity obligations because that's the more complicated one as only daddy obligation requires Contra stipulation
between the parties and you have to watch out for the terminology shoes by the parties in indicating the liability order credit becausw
not very often they use the word joint and solidarity the boss common word to the note solidarity among the debtors issues of the word
joint and several which is very common to us it can also be caused the law provides for solidaria obligations as in the case of those
involving cases where you have joint tortfeasors remember that your criminal order obligation is only very the engineer and the
construct and the architect of building that collapse is that those are also considered as joint obligations on the basis of law so you just
have to wait watch out for those specific provisions of law in the absence of any provision of law or any conqueror stipulation that
obligation or credit will simply be considered as so as far as solitary obligations are concerned what is the principle principle is if you are
a solidarity better you can be made to pay for the full amount of the obligation even if you have other code debtors with you if you are
solidarity credit are the rule ish you can collect the full amount of the obligation even if you have other Co creditors with you as to who
will be the one liable for the full amount and who will be entitled to collect we will discuss that today now for purposes of solidarity
obligations assuming we have the same example of ABC asbestos Soul Eater editors and then you have DE&FA solitary crediters how do
you collect the 300,000 tests 300,000 pesos can be collected from 8 or B or C and the 300,000 pesos can be collected by either D or E or F
who gets ahead of the line who gets preferred we will discuss that today but I guess as far as the solidarity doctors are concerned this is
different from joint publications the cause they will have to share in the burden of the full amount of the obligation even if some of them
are insolvent or some others are dying remember that for purposes of obligations and contracts insolvency is not the defense you can say
well stated very simply you can say well I'm not liable because I don't have money I want you not the bottles in the 1st place if you know
that you will not have money to pay it so insolvency is not a defense but it's a real situation so that once a person is insolvent somebody
will have to step up and accept responsibility so as far as solidarity debtors are concerned once the solidarity debtor pace to the creditor
the obligation is extinguished but it creates a new obligation among themselves which means if a pays 300,000 the creditor is gone after
payment because the obligation has been extinguished but a does have the right to proceed against B or CB&C for purposes of recovery
the share of each so you just turn around and say I paid the credit or 300,000 Mr B and Mr C you paid me 100 each can you ask me to pay
you the full amount of the obligation to answer is no because you'll never end it will be a circuit to shoot after paying 300,000 I can ask
300,000 from B and after be page 300,000 I can ask see to pay the 300,000 you'll ever end so once a solidarity that has been extinguished
as a general rule the liability about all the joint Peppers are considered as the liability among solidarity betters is considered as joining in
which case under that example if a pays 300,000 pesos to the credit are the creditor is gone because he has been satisfied with that as we
extinguished but a can proceed against B or and C for 100,000 message what happens if one of them becomes insolvent does it mean I Mr
A who paid the full amount of the obligation do I have to absorb in the meantime what we share is because of his insolvency the answer
is no that's why I say generally join but if one of them is considered insolvent in this example if B becomes insolvent he can he can
proceed against PNC but he can he will not collect anything from because there's become insolvent So what what does the law provide in
such an instance you and the other soldier or better will have to absorb the share of the insolvent it's really just in the meantime so in
which case how much did you collect from see you could like 150,000 from C 100,000 as each other shares and 50,000 each as there are
prorata share in what would have been the Sheriff let's temporary because at the moment then be would have the means to pay that then
you can collect from me or you can Sue be for specific performance for collection of 50,000 each and you garnishes properties because an
insolvent debtor means he may still have some other properties except that his liabilities exceed his OK so that's how it works in the case
of solidarity credit if it is a solidarity credit solidarity credit are can collect the full amount of the obligation he turns around after that
and which means that the debtors are out of the picture because they've already paid but he has to turn around and deliver the share of
the other solidarity creditors we don't talk of insolvency here because obviously at the moment you receive payment you are duty bound
immediately to turn over the proceeds of the sale or the proceeds of the payment to the other solidarity creditors supposing the credit
are let's say the creditor D got paid 300,000 and then he absconded well sorry for you are you are D in your E&F you have a better
because from now on he becomes adapter to the other solidarity creditors you have a debtor who has absconded you have a right of
action but you may not be able to collect but certainly that does not give you a cause of action to proceed against the betters because the
debtor's obligations have already been extinguished what you have on the table is something that is a new obligation created as a result
of the right of the other solitary crediters to proceed I guess the solidarity credit are who has received the full payment of the obligation
is it possible to have joined on the debtor side and solidarity on the creditor side and vice versa the answer is yes it's not usually common
to talk about solidarity credit on the part of the creditors usually if you read many of your cases many of them involve the solidarity
death of several factors it is always possible to have solidarity credit let's see how it works out let us assume you have the same example
of 300,000 you have a B&C you have solidarity letters in on the other side you have 3 E an EDENF brother because there is no statement
with respect to the nature of their credit they will be considered as joint creditors how does it work out as far as AB&C are concerned any
one of them can be made to pay 300,000 because they're solitary getters as far as DE&F are concerned they can only collect 100,000 so if
I were D how do I collect my 100,000 you can proceed against a PNC to collect your 100,000 in much the same way the other creditors
can proceed against AB&C to collect the 100,000 the only rule is once each

Distinctly there also literally obligations and if you use the pronoun I and there are several better signing the promissory note that is a
solitary obligation so if you are not very good at your grammar and you confuse your eye and your week you may end up having a
solidarity obligation even if it is not intended so for young lawyers you want the joint obligation keep your mouth shut OK don't describe
because the moment you try to use you know sometimes you try to be cute and try to impress your client I'm using this word in order to
know you still location you might end up so the moment you have a solidarity obligation as we have said you can have solidarity on the
part of the debtors solidarity on the part of the creditors the most common one is of course solitary obligation on the part of the debtors
we called that passive solidarity quite possible because in any form of obligation the betters or the obligor are the passive parties why
are they passive and used to create this with the girls but I don't think I can make that equation anymore OK the passive part is only way
they do not initiate the girls no longer wait today so watch out gentlemen it's Valentine's Day so everyone now has a right to take the
initiative and to make the first move but for purposes of obligations and contracts the passive parties are the debtors you wait until the
creditors demand from you you wait until they try to collect from you you do not make the first initiative you do not make the offer of
course you get the general rule and in the natural scheme of things they get those just wait if you don't want to collect from me well and
good I will not of course offer to make payment if it is solidarity on the part of the creditors we call that active solidarity why active
because of this the opposite of the passing that crediters initiate the action they have the right to make a demand they have the right to
initiate the collection of the obligation so you solidarity can either be active solidarity or you can have passive solidarity can it be mixed
yes it can be mixed because you can have solidarity on both sides which is what we discussed earlier let's start with the rules on active
solidarity when we say active solidarity that means that creditors would have a right or each of the creditors who have the right to collect
the full amount of the obligation what are the rules if it is a case of active solidarity in the absence of any stipulation as to who is entitled
to receive the full amount of the obligation it is of course the 1st to make a demand it's not very common as I said to have active sylvatic
most cases you only have one creditor and you have several debtors but depending on how large and expensive the amount of the debt is
there are several instances that the creditors pulled together their funds and let the single or several letters excuse you talk about what
we call the syndicated loans this is a financial term they they call it syndicated because several banks enter into a syndicate and they
decide to lend to one group or one or two or three or several letters in most of the syndicated loan agreements you always have a
progression that talks about who should make the demand and who should receive the payment because it's unruly if you have several
crediters and they all start making a demand it becomes unruly and it removes the solidarity among themselves becausw they try to
outdo each other so in most cases where you have solidarity among the crediters invariably there is an agreement as to who gets to
collect the full amount of the obligation you will designate the bank account which is generally handled by one bank with an obligation of
course to deliver the share of the other banks that provided the financing OK that's how it works out so if you have a stipulation that let's
say you have ABC DE box a consortium of banks indicating a financing for one group and they are all considered a solidarity crediters
they will designate one will be the of course the the one who should collect and the one who's entitled to receive payment if you are at
better annual creditors are solid directly related or bound to each other that means you follow the stipulation in the agreement you pay
to the credit are designated in the agreement and if you don't pay for that credit or but you pay to other members of the bank consortium
what happens to your payment your payment is not valid you can be made to pay again OK obviously you can ask for the return of what
you paid to the one who is not entitled to receive it on the basis of unjust enrichment but as far as think as extinguishment of the
obligation is concerned the obligation is not extinguished by paying to the wrong party one of the rules of payment as we will discuss
later on is that you have to pay to the proper party yeah there's a stipulation that you have to pay to bank a you have to pay to bank A and
not to bank B because your payment to bank fee is not considered as well in failure in the absence of course of any stipulation of that
nature then we need to have the active parties really acting very actively and make the first man because the rule is if you have attacked a
case of active solidarity and the there is no stipulation as to who among the several solidarity creditors are vital to the full amount of the
application then the rule is it is the one that first makes a demand on the letter so whoever sensing the first valid demand of course
obviously if you're talking about those that required not arial or traditional demand then they will have to comply with the formalities
but as a general rule it's any form of demand in ordinary obligation so the the one who first sends a collection letter will be entitled to
receive payment once the demand has been made by one of the active solidarity crediters you had to pay to the creditor any other dim
and that will come after is no longer valid demand because the that you know it's casting stone once a demand has been made you had to
pay to the creditor first make a demand once you have paid to the credit are who is entitled under the agreement to receive the full
amount or he is the one that makes the the first demand in absence in the absence of any stipulation letters obligation is extinguished
what remains is the creditors obligation or the creditor who received the full payment the obligation now arises as to his obligation to
deliver the share of the others if the other solidarity creditors do not get the share what is the right of action against the solidarity debtor
who received the payment it's really an action for collection that's all if there is insolvency of the creditor who received the payment I
don't know how this would happen he receives the full amount of the obligation today tomorrow he becomes insolvent what happens OK
well nobody is going to observe his obligation in the meantime because it's only him who has that obligation to deliver the share of the
others and if it turns out to be insolvent then you just have to have your empty judgment and try to enforce it later the moment you find
that he has properties that you can go after so that's that's the way it works insofar as active solidarity is concerned in the case of passive
solidarity this is the more common one you have several vectors and add any depth or can be made to pay the full amount of the
application again when you talk about solidarity whether it is on the side of the debtor or on the side of the credit card you need either a
stipulation or a law that makes the obligation so little as far as the debtors liability is concerned you do not have the same rule as the first
to make the demand the rule in passive solidarity is the credit are or if you're talking about several crediters all of them can go against
only one of the solitary betters and can ask for the full amount of the obligation there are no other rules here except that because when
you talk about active solidarity once the demand has been made by one creditor that's it he only paid to that credit are here if you have
solidarity debtors if the creditor makes a demaOK have a nd on a it doesn't stop him from going after be for as long as the full amount of
the obligation has not been paid so in the same example that we have for the three handed browser is the credit are procedure against A
and he is only able to collect 100,000 that he can go against P for the remaining 200,000 if is able to collect the 200,000 from B then he
stops because the full amount of the obligation has already been extinguished but in the mean time that he changed his mind I don't like
to go against a I will proceed against P first long as he has not yet collected anything from a there is nothing that will prevent him or stop
him from proceeding against the rest for either the remaining part of the obligation or the full amount of the obligation if nothing has
been paid by the 1st letter that he has preceded against there are a few cases that you have there with respect to the effect of a solidarity
debtor dying in the meantime uh this is no effect on the solidarity credit are because solidarity credit are assuming something that can
survive is just taken over by the errors in the case of a solidarity debtor who dies there is of course your rule and remedial that you have
to claim against their state within a period of two years otherwise you may be considered as already late in the distribution because then
is would have distributed it among themselves as far as claiming against the eight estate is concerned this is really just going after their
state because in most cases monetary obligations or liabilities of their state they are not inherited by the airspy course you only inherit
liabilities of the odyssey's parent or your predecessor interest to the extent that there still properties remaining but it's not certainly
inherited so it's a liability of the estate so before distribution and we will talk about this in Wilson subsection before distribution of assets
of a deceased person is done all the liabilities of pieces I netted out of the assets remaining after the disease's that you have a period of
two years to do that if you don't do it within a period of two years can you still go after the heirs technically yes but only to the extent that
they have received something from this thing so if all the other creditors have made the claim within the two year. And you did not and
there are no other properties left that the heirs would inherit then you would not be able to select anything so a couple of these cases
there was an issue with respect to one of these solidarity debtors dying in the meantime the creditor did not make a claim on their state
within the two year. So the question is are you really required to make a claim on the estate within the two year. And ask the court has
explained it it really depends because as a creditor and you have a case of solidarity bettors ever right to proceed against anyone for the
full amount of the obligation the choice is yours so you can choose the living or you can choose the debt and if you're choosing the dead
you have to make a claim against estate within the two year. Provided for by the rules of court why would you go against a dead person
well you know if the dead person's surname is Ayala then you may want to proceed against his estate if the living person surname is
might have been luck you probably don't want to do that really depends on what is the best interest of the credit are so if you're able to
collect from the disease estate why bother to go against the living who may try to you know get away from his obligation so I guess the
room is very well stated now if you want to proceed against the estate of a deceased person who is a solidarity better and he died even
before making payment on his obligation then you filed the claim within the two year. If not then you can no longer claim against the
estate you have to proceed against the living but it doesn't mean that if you do not make a claim on the estate of the deceased solitary
better you can no longer collect the obligation that's not entirely accurate because then you just limiting your choices you have to limit
your choice only with respect to those who are still living and collect the full above the application against the living I should possible for
several debtors who are solid early bound to offer to make payment it's not usual I mean letters don't normally come forward and offer
to pay the full amount of the obligation but if you have a situation where a B&C all offer to pay the full amount of the obligation can you
pick only age money yes you can pick only ace money it really depends on on the credit or because it is the red credit or who was the
right to choose whether he wants to proceed against any of all of the solidarity letters and he is Julie entitled to collect the full amount of
the obligation only from one of the solidarity debtors when it's only that it better is is is sued for payment there are several defenses that
he can race I don't think I have time to go into the different defenses so I will end there your assignment for next week will start from
where we left off what we have not been accomplished for this week and you include of course payment up to an including seven point
2.3 which is that ha ha ha section on session that's a special form of payment OK thank you guys for waiting for me and I'll see you on
Tuesday name the father and the son and the Holy Spirit Amen glory be to the father and to the son to the Holy Spirit