The Parent Company 'Guarantee' in a French Commercial Lease

The risk is that 'guarantee' alone understates the creditor's remedies and may be read as a secondary guarantee requiring the creditor first to exhaust its remedies against the tenant. French law treats a cautionnement as accessory to the underlying debt, but the word 'solidaire' removes the surety's benefit of discussion: the creditor may pursue the surety directly. 'Indivisible' adds that the obligation cannot be split among co-sureties or heirs. 'Joint and several liability' is not a security at all; it describes co-debtors. 'Indemnity' is primary liability and would change the risk profile. I would render the phrase as 'joint and several suretyship (cautionnement solidaire et indivisible)' or 'surety waiving the benefit of discussion (cautionnement solidaire et indivisible)'. The bracketed French preserves the exact legal institution for a lender's counsel. I would not use 'guarantee' without qualification, because the lender's credit analysis depends on direct recourse.

I would raise a written query before delivery, not after. The email would explain, in two or three sentences, that 'guarantee' in English usually denotes secondary liability and that the French clause gives direct recourse through solidarité; I would propose 'surety (cautionnement)' or 'joint and several suretyship' and ask the partner to confirm. If the partner maintains the glossary, I would record the instruction in the project file and state that the glossary term is the client's preferred rendering, not my legal analysis. I would not silently substitute 'guarantee' and certify the result as accurate. A short translator's note, clearly marked, could read: '[Translator's note: cautionnement solidaire et indivisible - a French-law personal security allowing direct recourse against the surety.]' Whether to place it in the translation depends on the certificate and the recipient. For a due-diligence pack, a separate glossary note is often cleaner; if the certificate states that the translation is complete and accurate, any inserted note must be identified as the translator's and not attributed to the parties.

The certificate should identify the document, the source and target languages, the translator or reviewer, the date, and the capacity in which the signatory certifies. 'Accurate' is a strong claim: if I have inserted bracketed notes or retained French terms, the certificate must not suggest that the translation is a verbatim substitution. I would ask the agency to use wording such as 'true and complete translation of the attached document, including translator's notes where marked'. I would also check who signs: a certificate signed by an agency officer who did not translate or review the text is weaker than one signed by the responsible translator. For a lender's due diligence, the certificate may not need notarisation, but for court use the recipient jurisdiction may require a sworn translator or an apostille. I would flag that distinction rather than let the client assume that 'certified' means admissible everywhere.