Our legal system already provides for institutions such as conventional seizure, filing in the interest of a third party, contract in favour of the third party and, more often, irrevocable mandate, which, with their differences and peculiarities, have effects similar to those of a trust contract, but do not always manage to meet the needs of the parties to the guarantee and security by not advancing this ductility. Thanks to this, a well-structured escrow agreement is suitable for implementing situations that would otherwise be difficult to apply. In the United States, its use also takes place in matters of succession and in the case of collective actions, which is a contractual form expressly subject to national law. Among the instruments developed by commercial practice, in particular the Anglo-Saxon one, the „sequestration” is of particular interest. From a commercial point of view, with the escrow contract, the Buyer guarantees the possibility of verifying the characteristics of the goods (in particular with regard to the quality of the goods) and their conformity in accordance with the agreements concluded with the supplier, which, on the other hand, ensures the execution of the payment or possibly the return of the goods. However, in accordance with what happens under the mandate agreement, even in the case provided for in the trust agreement, the trust agent is bound by a fiduciary relationship with the parties (for example, remember that in the United States he is considered the representative of both parties to the main relationship, who can only revoke his assignment jointly). . . .