Abstract
The Court of Cassation put an end to the jurisprudential and doctrinal controversies on the quality of the joint and several sureties regarding the compromise clause, and this by refusing the application of the theory of mutual representation of the co-owners and by characterizing it as “third party”, thereby opening the door to the third-party opposition. The transposition of the solution proposed by the High Court was perfectly applied to the insurer who did not sign the arbitration clause inserted in a contract binding his insured person to another person, even in the presence of the trial management clause in the insurance contract. Finally, the possibility of applying this solution has been studied on a case-by-case basis on the effect of the statutory arbitration clause on a future or ex-partner.