If law required that person who makes contract must write the content of contract by him/herself, but in reality, the person cannot read or write, what will party do instead of his/her illiterate?
According to Article 900(1) of Civil Code (CC), a guaranty shall be formed when (1) a prospective guarantor undertakes to the obligee that in the event the obligor (principal obligor) fails to perform his obligation (underlying obligation), the prospective guarantor will perform the whole or part of such obligation together with the obligor(guarantor’s obligation), and (2)the obligee accepts such undertaking. Therefore even when the amount of the guaranty obligation is not set forth in the guarantor’s handwriting, the contract of guaranty is still valid but it may be revoked by the guarantor at any moment (Art.901(2)).
If the guarantor is illiterate and could not write the amount of the guaranty obligation, the contract of guaranty is valid but may be revoked at any moment. Therefore counter party is not willing to enter into the contract of guaranty with a prospective guarantor who is illiterate. But it is inconvenient for the illiterate person.
There might be some way for the illiterate person to enter into the contract of guaranty which may not be revoked. In other word, there might be cases in which the judge may consider that there is substantial “guarantor’s handwriting” even if there is no actual handwriting of guarantor. For example in the case that an illiterate person A entered into the contract of guaranty, his/her son B attended him/her and wrote “ I handwrote the amount of the guaranty obligation instead of A because A is illiterate” as well as the amount of the guaranty obligation instead of A. If you, the judge consider this substantially same as “guarantor’s (A’s) handwriting” , A cannot revoke this contract because Art.901(2) does not apply. Whether you should consider this to be A’s handwriting or not depends on the situation. So this is a matter of interpretation of “guarantor’s handwriting”(Art.901(2)) and it’s up to the Cambodian judge’s decision.
In deciding whether it shall be considered as “guarantor’s handwriting” or not, you shall keep the purpose of Art.901(2) in mind. The purpose of Art.901(2) is to protect an interest of guarantor. Art.901(2) protects an interest of guarantor by requiring his/her handwriting because prospective guarantor becomes more considerate and careful where he/she handwrites the amount of the guaranty obligation in entering into the contract of guaranty. Therefore if the substitute way for the guarantor’s handwriting is against the interest of guarantor, we cannot say this substitute way is substantially same as “guarantor’s handwriting”, so the judge may not consider this substitute way to be “guarantor’s handwriting” .