A Matter of Honor

[HaMizrachi@aol.com]

Greetings from Yaakov.

To disagree with my esteemed colleague and fellow SCAdian:

1) I see no written instrument.  One has sympathy with the period judges of
the King's Bench, who would not overturn the Law for "mere breath."  My
recollection of Articles 4 and 9 require written instruments for the sale of
debt, chattel paper, or negotiable instruments.

2) There appears to be considerable mis-understanding regarding the terms of
the second loan.  While I hesitate to overturn my colleague's cogent analysis
of what actually transpired, I believe that there is considerable room for
interpretation.  Since the question is one of honor, to wit: whether Tom
keeps his word, I don't think an appeal to the (possible) ultimate legal
determination settles the question.  One can reasonable understand from the
facts as stated that Tom honestly and in good faith did not believe he gave
his word in the manner Sarah interpreted.  Indeed, as with the others, I put
considerable weioght on Sara's initial rejection of Tom's offer to "co-sign"
for John.  I also find Sara's refusal to request repayment from John
puzzling, particularly since she reprimanded Tom on this very subject.

(con't)