On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:13:26 +0200, abelard
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:51:42 GMT, John Anderton
> wrote:
>
>
>>As an aside, just how many people are there out there that think that
>>an unsecured loan is one you don't have to pay back if you don't want
>>to ? (which is what you seem, to me, to be implying an unsecured loan
>>is) Why would *anyone* ever pay it back and why would anyone lend
>>under those terms ?
>
>now now...i just feared someone would take that line.....
>but i'm implying no such thing....
But you seem, to me, to be implying that if someone doesn't keep up
payments on an unsecured loan but has assets that could be sold to
re-pay the loan, the lender shouldn't be able to take legal action to
gain access to those assets. If that's not accurate, what are you
saying should happen when somebody doesn't repay an unsecured loan but
has assets ?
>meanwhile i have in the back of my attic that homes have special
> status in law...or did...
Could be but I don't think so.
>
>if lawyers use words with highly non-standard meaning
A secured loan is one which is secured on a specific asset (like a
house). An unsecured loan is one which isn't secured on a specific
asset. Is that really a highly non-standard meaning ?
Cheers,
John |