Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if I lend someone 1000 pounds and they say they will give 1000 back, but they don't, is it enforceable when I ask for the money back?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    This is a perfectly common contract, OP. Yes, it's enforceable and in refusing to give you the money back the person would in fact be in breach.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Deeds)
    This is a perfectly common contract, OP. Yes, it's enforceable and in refusing to give you the money back the person would in fact be in breach.
    Could I just ask, I am not currently studying law but will, hopefully, be next year, and I am just interested as to the answer. How would you be able to prove that the person said they would return the loan? Or the fact that it is even a loan at all?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is no consideration moving from the promisee though?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Defence may argue a social/domestic/friendly arrangement, but it's unlikely that that would succeed considering the amount of the loan, I'd say there is a clear expectation for them to pay it back.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No interest on the loan.... consideration has to move both ways?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mj2010x)
    There is no consideration moving from the promisee though?
    it's the promise to give it back
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by LawIsBraw)
    Could I just ask, I am not currently studying law but will, hopefully, be next year, and I am just interested as to the answer. How would you be able to prove that the person said they would return the loan? Or the fact that it is even a loan at all?
    That's a good question and the answer isn't really definite. It always depends upon the circumstances and facts of any individual case. It's generally good practice to carry out these sort of negotiations in writing where the proof of a signature provides "absolute" agreement to the terms within a contract. Indeed, if the OP were a business lending to another business and the contract was absent, the OP may in fact be denied (equitable) relief on that basis alone.

    Generally, however, the courts will always assume that where money is given to one person it's usually "in consideration" for something else. An altruistic relationship (where one party gives a gift to another) is only ever likely to be assumed to have occured within a familial context and even then, only as between certain members.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Deeds)
    That's a good question and the answer isn't really definite. It always depends upon the circumstances and facts of any individual case. It's generally good practice to carry out these sort of negotiations in writing where the proof of a signature provides "absolute" agreement to the terms within a contract. Indeed, if the OP were a business lending to another business and the contract was absent, the OP may in fact be denied (equitable) relief on that basis alone.

    Generally, however, the courts will always assume that where money is given to one person it's usually "in consideration" for something else. An altruistic relationship (where one party gives a gift to another) is only ever likely to be assumed to have occured within a familial context and even then, only as between certain members.

    Ah I see, perhaps also the large sum of money given may point towards your point about it being "in consideration".

    Thanks for the informative and quick reply .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Goose)
    it's the promise to give it back
    Surely consideration has to have some economic or personal value - to be sufficient
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by mj2010x)
    Surely consideration has to have some economic or personal value - to be sufficient
    It does have economic value. When a bank lends you a loan you agree to pay it back (plus interest, granted). This example is no different. The OP gives A £1,000 in consideration for A repaying the £1,000.

    And you're welcome, LawIsBraw.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    any authority btw?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by mj2010x)
    any authority btw?
    Obiter dictum, Foakes v Beer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I get two pints of beer for authority on this, so please if anyone knows tell me
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Deeds)
    Obiter dictum, Foakes v Beer.
    the original contract had consideration though (the interest)
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by mj2010x)
    the original contract had consideration though (the interest)
    There was no consideration in this case because the plaintiff had only agreed to part-payment. Discharge of an incomplete duty is not good conideration. Just like, in your case, A couldn't turn around and later pay you only £100 in lieu of the full £1k. This was the ratio decidendi, like I said, have a look at the obiter dictum.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Lending £1000 to a mate is the kind of situation where the courts probably are not going to intervene. Its very difficult to argue that there is intent to create legal relations in that kind of context.

    If the £1000 was lent in a commercial context, I *think* it would need to comply with the Consumer Credit Act to be enforceable - this means that there must be a signed agreement giving various details, among other things. There may be a relevant exclusion but I don't think there is.

    In any event, lending £1000 to be paid back on indeterminate terms by an indeterminate date is probably going to fail as a contract because it lacks certainty.

    In short: it probably is not enforceable.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Lending £1000 to a mate is the kind of situation where the courts probably are not going to intervene. Its very difficult to argue that there is intent to create legal relations in that kind of context.

    If the £1000 was lent in a commercial context, I *think* it would need to comply with the Consumer Credit Act to be enforceable - this means that there must be a signed agreement giving various details, among other things. There may be a relevant exclusion but I don't think there is.

    In any event, lending £1000 to be paid back on indeterminate terms by an indeterminate date is probably going to fail as a contract because it lacks certainty.

    In short: it probably is not enforceable.
    Isn't it only where the courts are convinced that the agreement is "entirely social" that they will refuse to intervene on the grounds of there being no intention to create legal relations? And again, is this not usually between close familial bonds; husband and wife (Balfour v Balfour), mother and daughter (Jones v Padavatton)?

    My understanding was also that the presumption is always rebuttable where there is reliance placed upon the agreement. As is the case here where the OP lends money on the basis that (and relying upon the fact that) person x will then repay him/her. As, again, in Parker v Clark.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Lending £1000 to a mate is the kind of situation where the courts probably are not going to intervene. Its very difficult to argue that there is intent to create legal relations in that kind of context.

    If the £1000 was lent in a commercial context, I *think* it would need to comply with the Consumer Credit Act to be enforceable - this means that there must be a signed agreement giving various details, among other things. There may be a relevant exclusion but I don't think there is.

    In any event, lending £1000 to be paid back on indeterminate terms by an indeterminate date is probably going to fail as a contract because it lacks certainty.

    In short: it probably is not enforceable.

    wow ok.

    just to check, is the point about the promise to pay back being consideration, sufficient?

    Thanks all, interesting discussion
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.