The security agreement defines the different rights that the donor will have with respect to guarantees that, in addition to all other rights that the lender may have by law, such as the rights of Article 9 of the Single Code of Commerce, which has been adopted in one way or another by each state in the United States. The security agreement also covers issues such as authorized sales or other transactions relating to the donor`s guarantees in due form, as well as the communications that the recipient must provide to the donor when certain measures are taken. There are many forms of purchase of supply companies and legal bankers, in addition to software that will create a security agreement after certain user entries. On the other hand, a funding plan must only “indicate guarantees”3 in accordance with UCC 9-502 (a) (3). Section 9-504 provides that a funding institution sufficiently indicates “guarantees” when it contains either (i) a description of the guarantees covered in point 9-108 or (ii) indicating that the financing establishment includes “all personal assets or assets,” including allowing descriptions of super-fine security. According to official notice 1 on uCC 9-504, this standard is met when a third party searches for declared security funding returns and has noticed that a person may have an interest in the security of that guarantee. Even in the event of minor errors or omissions, a funding statement that essentially meets these requirements is effective, unless errors or omissions render the funding statement “seriously misleading.” A guaranteed debt may contain a security agreement under its terms. When a security agreement lists a commercial property as collateral, the lender can file a UCC-1 return that will serve as a guarantee for the property. The second principle is illustrated in In re Martin Grinding – Machine Works, Inc.20. In this case, the security agreement unintentionally omitted the inventory and claims of the security description. Although these two types of security were included in the funding statement, the Tribunal found that the insured party had no security interest in the inventory and accounts because they had been removed from the security agreement.