Question

Хозяин типографии Серков заключил договор займа с предпринимателем Кисовым, по которому получил 20 тыс. рублей сроком на три месяца под 25%. Не имея возможности отдать деньги в срок, Серков предложил Кисову вернуть долг картоном, стоимость которого равна долгу с процентами. Подумайте, в таком случае закон признает такую "подмену" правомерной?

Answer 1

Подмена не правомерна, тот кто брал займ должен вернуть именно деньги

Answer 2

The Legal Validity of Repaying a Loan with Cardboard

In the given scenario, the owner of a printing house, Mr. Serkov, entered into a loan agreement with Mr. Kisov, a businessman, borrowing 20,000 rubles for a period of three months at an interest rate of 25%. However, Mr. Serkov was unable to repay the loan within the agreed-upon timeframe. As an alternative, he proposed repaying the debt with cardboard, which is valued at the same amount as the outstanding debt plus interest. The question is whether such a substitution would be considered legally valid.

To determine the legal validity of this "substitution" proposed by Mr. Serkov, it is important to consider the applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdiction where the loan agreement was made. The specific laws governing loan agreements and the enforceability of alternative forms of repayment may vary from country to country.

Unfortunately, without specific information about the jurisdiction in question, it is not possible to provide a definitive answer. However, it is worth noting that in many legal systems, loan agreements are typically governed by contract law principles. Under contract law, the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties are generally binding, as long as they are not contrary to public policy or illegal.

In some jurisdictions, the courts may consider the proposed substitution of repayment with cardboard as a valid alternative if it meets certain requirements. These requirements may include:

1. Mutual Agreement: Both parties, Mr. Serkov and Mr. Kisov, must agree to the alternative form of repayment. If Mr. Kisov accepts the proposal and agrees to accept cardboard as repayment for the debt, it may be considered a valid substitution.

2. Consideration: The proposed alternative form of repayment must have some value and be considered as a form of consideration. If the cardboard is deemed to have a value equivalent to the outstanding debt plus interest, it may satisfy this requirement.

3. Legality: The proposed alternative form of repayment must not violate any laws or public policy. If the use of cardboard as a form of repayment is not prohibited by law and does not contravene any public policy considerations, it may be considered legally valid.

It is important to consult with a legal professional or seek advice from relevant authorities in the specific jurisdiction to determine the legal validity of such a substitution in the given scenario. They will be able to provide accurate and up-to-date information based on the applicable laws and regulations in that jurisdiction.

Please note that the information provided here is general in nature and should not be considered as legal advice.