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

Re: Re[2]: A question on honor

>           Unfortunately, I know that none of you want to believe that
>           Tom owes anyone money, however, if he borrowed money from
>           Sara -- he owes her repayment.  He tried to assign a debt
>           owed to him by Jon to cover his debt to Sara.  She accepted
>           that assignment, as a method of repayment, however,  Tom
>           still owes her the money.  Her polite absolution of Tom does
>           not destroy the equities involved.  Jon owes Tom money which
>           Tom needs to tell Jon to repay to Sarah based on his
>           agreement with Sara (did he do that, if not the assignment
>           is incomplete).  Nevertheless, Sara has recourse to Tom to
>           pay the debt, because he is the one who has the legal and
>           moral obligation to pay -- all he has done is assign Jon's
>           debt to Sara as a method of repayment -- he has not gotten
>           rid of his debt.
The scenario as presented clearly suggests to me that she was "buying"
the "note", not loaning money to Tom. He didn't try to assign the debt;
he sold the obligation. His offer to remain liable for the debt was
declined by Sarah. I don't see where he remains liable. Nothing in the
original statement of the problem says that Sarah _loaned_ money to Tom.
The only _loan_ was from Tom to Jon, which was then transferred to Sarah.
You can make a loan and sell the note and then be completely clear of 
any obligation to the new note holder. That is what appears to have
occurred in this case.