This is a terrible clause in which the parties to the contract bind not only themselves but also their heirs and beneficiaries, even if they are minor or unfit. The undertaking concerns extensive ordinary and legal (compulsory?) guarantees.

Sounds wholly unreasonable to me, and I wonder to what extent a court of law would consider that a person could bind heirs and beneficiaries in this way, all the more so if they are minor and/or unfit - sounds unfair to say the least! Is it possible to bind such parties in this way? What about the doctrine of privity of contract? I'd be horrified to discover that I was suddenly bound to respect a thing like this which I had never signed and much less read!


Here's a stab at a translation of your sentence although I am not entirely happy with the meaning of "le plus étendues" in context, nor what it is actually doing there, altho' it obviously related to the feminine plural "guaranties".

"Vendor and purchaser (hereby) undertake to hold themselves, their heirs and beneficiaries, be they minor or (declared legally) unfit, jointly and severally liable in respect of the most wide-ranging/extensive ordinary and legal guarantees."

GDT for :
"solidairement" = joint and several liability
"ayant cause" syn. "ayant droit" = beneficiary

Also "fûssent-ils" can be rendered by the English subjunctive "be they"