[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: A question on honor

On Feb 21, 15:10, Michelle Ringo wrote:
>           When a person does not pay his/her debts they are generally
>           considered without Honor.  In addition, the person who
>           loaned the money first and then took out a loan from Sarah
>           assigned the first debt to Sarah.  She is legal the assignee
>           of Jon's debt.  However, Tom still owed her the money
>           regardless of whether Jon paid or not.  This is an answer in
>           a legal context.  So legally, Tom is not within his rights.
>           Honorably, he is a real crumb and acting in a way that is
>           considerable immoral from a legal view point.
> -- End of excerpt from Michelle Ringo <Michelle_Ringo@ed.gov>

	I have to disagree whole-heartedly.  Sarah clearly offers not to
loan Tom money, but to, essentially, purchase Jon,s debt from Tom. 
The scenarios are dramatically different.
I) Party A loans $10 to party B.
   Party C loans $10 to party A.

In this case A is responsible for paying C and B for paying A.

II) Party A loans $10 to Party B
    Party A sells Party B's debt to Party C for $10.

In this case, A has been taken completely out of the loop and should never 
hear another word on that deal.

>From the wording of the scenario, which may or may accurately reflect what
was actually said,  Tom is cleary without debt as II)A.  
Additionally, since no time period for repayment was stipulated in either case
the debt would honorable be able to repay when it would not cause heartship.
Two weeks or a month is certainly a reasonable extension when no repayment
period was set.

On Feb 21, 11:04, Eric Jon Campbell wrote:
> Tom finds that he needs the money and 

Sarah offers to take on Jon's debt to Tom 

>so that Tom can get the money he needs.
> Tom is unsure about the arrangemant and offers to pay off Jon's debt if Jon 
> proves unable or unwilling to pay back the debt.
> Sarah states that since she knows Jon far better than Tom does, and that will 
> not be necissary. Sarah also states that that Tom should not worry about it 
> and that such a promise will not be necessary.
> -- End of excerpt from Eric Jon Campbell <ejcampbe@tx.ncsu.edu>

Questions of Law and quesions of Honor are two vastly different subjects.
I have in fact scene similar scenarios played out before.  Generally it 
works better for each loan to be seperate and distinct between only 2 parties.

Things that would have made this all cut and dried.  (Well I consider it that
way anyhow, but for Sarah who is obvious confused.)

Sarah say "Tom here is $10, I will collect it from the $10 Jon owes you."
Tom say "Jon, Sarah has given me the $10 you owed me.  You now owe her instead
	of me."
Jon say "OK, I agree to pay Sarah the $10 I had owed Tom.

Lord Frithurc