>>11357288
The more I think about it, the more I think that a "guarantor" system would arise around voluntary slavery. Slaves have very limited legal rights and essentially no access to the legal system, so there would probably be someone who a slave could designate a portion of her own proceeds to who would be responsible for ensuring the terms of her own sale were not violated.
Of course, these terms would generally be pretty limited in effectiveness and would usually only apply to the original dealer she sells herself to - I don't think any mechanism could allow a slave to continue to impose restrictions on future owners. The sorts of terms I think would be likely would be specifying that initial sale be for individual use or designating how she would be advertised.
The most important control in the system, though, would simply be that if a dealer were found to have frequently breached contracts with their slaves, future voluntary slaves would avoid submitting themselves to that seller. That alone would help ensure that the dealer keeps their word.

>>11356332
>if you're going into slavery because you can't make it free, you would be looking at specific Masters as suitors, you wouldn't just throw yourself on the mercy of the auction block.
But who would the money go to? Slavery has to be legitimized, and I imagine that initial submission must be through a dealer.