Is person-person lending/borrowing protected by law?
"By protected you mean what exactly? In the US, generally you'd get a promissory note signed by B saying ""B promises to repay A such and such amount on such and such terms"". In case of default you can sue in a court of law, and the promissory note will be the evidence for your case. In case of B declaring bankruptcy, you'd submit the promissory note to the bankruptcy court to get in line with all the other creditors. Similarly in all the rest of the world, you make a contract, you enforce the contract in courts." "For person A to be protected (meaning able to recover some or all of the money should the other party try to welsh on the deal), the two of them must have entered into a valid, binding contract where both parties acknowledge and agree to the debt and the terms. Such a contract is subject to the Statute of Frauds, a collection of laws governing contracts which is mostly borrowed from English common law. The basics are that in all cases, a ""contract"" is only formed when both parties agree, technically when one party accepts an offer made by the other party. Both the offer and acceptance must be made sincerely. For a contract, once entered, to be enforceable, proof of the contract's existence and terms must itself exist. Certain types of transactions (real estate, large amounts of money) require contracts to be in written form, and witnessed by a trusted third party (in most cases this party is required to be a notary public). And contracts must have a certain amount of quid-pro-quo; contracts that provide a unilateral benefit can be thrown out on a case-by-case basis. A contract that simply states that Person B owes Person A money, without stating what benefit Person A had provided Person B in return for the money (in this case A gives B the money to begin with), is unenforceable. The benefits must of course be legal on both sides; a contract to deliver 5 tons of cocaine will not be upheld by any court in any free country, and neither will any contract attempting to enforce hush money, kickbacks, bribery etc (though some toe the line; one could argue that a signing bonus is tantamount to bribery). In some cases even seemingly benign clauses, like ""escape clauses"" allowing one party a ""free out"", can make the contract unenforceable as they could be abused to the severe detriment of one party. There are also jurisdiction-specific rules, such as limits on ""finance charges"" for debts not owed to a ""bank"" (a bar, for instance, cannot charge 10% on an outstanding tab in the United States). This is HUGE for your example, because if Person A had specified an interest rate in excess of the allowed rate for non-bank lenders, not only will the contract get thrown out even though Person B agreed to the terms, but Person A could find themselves on the hook for punitive damages payable to Person B, FAR in excess of the contracted amount. Given that the agreement meets all tests of validity for a contract, if either party fails to perform in accordance with the contract, causing a loss or ""tort"" for the other party, the injured party can sue. Generally the two options are ""strict performance"" (the injuring party is ordered by the court to comply exactly with the terms of the contract), or payment of net actual damages and dissolution of the contract. In your example, if Person A had lent Person B money, strict performance would mean payment of the debt in the installments agreed, at the rate agreed; actual damages would be payment of the outstanding balance plus current interest charges (without any further penalty). Notice that it's ""net"" damages; if Person A was to issue the loan in installments, and missed one, causing Person B to suffer damages from the loss of expected cash flow directly resulting in their failure to pay according to the terms, then Person B's proven damages are subtracted from A's; very often, the plaintiff in a suit to recover money can end up owing the defendant for a prior failure to perform. There are further laws governing bankruptcy; basically, if the other person cannot satisfy the contract and cannot pay damages, they will pay what they can, and the contract is terminated with prejudice (""no blood from a turnip"")." "Yes, it is, under some circumstances (basically, a piece of paper saying ""John Doe borrowed Josh Shoe 100 USD"" is not enough). Usually, the paper should include: This is the case for Czech Republic, I believe it's similar for other countries as well. Remember that without the repair date, you have very complicated position forcing the person to give you the money back. As well, there's a withdrawal of rights, i.e. after X years after the ""repair date"", you cannot force the person to give you the money. You have to send the case to the court in some period after the ""repair date"", if you don't have the money yet."
I know one piece of information that can help you (in a macabe sort of way) - from what my wife has told me, if your partner dies, you are not responsible for paying for their debts, especially student loans. I expect the same thing for credit cards - if someone were to happen to charge $2,000 on their credit card and get hit by a bus, the credit card company can cajole and plead for you to pay for it, but you have no legal requirement to do so.  Unfortunately I do not have as much information about as if you spouse is living. "I want to first state that I'm not an attorney and this is not a response that would be considered legal advice.  I'm going to assume this was a loan was made in the USA.  The OP didnt specify.   A typical auto loan has a borrower and a co-borrower or ""cosigner"".  The first signer on the contract is considered the ""primary"".  As to your question about a primary being a co-borrower my answer would be no.  Primary simply means first signer and you can't be a first signer and a co-borrower.  Both borrower and co-borrower, unless the contract specifies different, are equally responsible for the auto loan regardless if you're a borrower or a co-borrower (primary or not primary).     I'm not sure if there was a situation not specified that prompted the question.  Just remember that when you add a co-borrower their positive and negative financials are handled equally as the borrower.  So in some cases a co-borrower can make the loan not qualify.   (I worked for an auto finance company for 16 years)" There are probably specific laws that control landlord/tenant rent disputes. But your friend's argument assumes that there aren't. Let's assume that there aren't. So there are two possibilities. Either the contract directly addresses this issue or it doesn't. If the contract directly and specifically addresses this issue, then that controls. Your friend is not claiming that it is specifically addressed. So the general principle is this -- when something occurs within a contract that wasn't explicitly discussed by the parties, courts will try to figure out what the parties likely would have agreed to had they discussed the specific issue (without changing the agreed terms of the contract). This should produce the result that is fair to both parties. Your friend is arguing then that had he and the landlord discussed the issue, the landlord would have agreed that in the event he is no longer able to accept credit cards easily, your friend could live there rent free. That doesn't seem right to me. Does it seem right to you? Much more likely they would have agreed that he might have some leeway to work out a new payment scheme and maybe some late rent should be forgiven if he made an attempt to pay on time but couldn't make arrangements. But I don't see more than that being reasonable. "To put a different spin on it, suppose you loaned someone $100K, expecting that they would pay it back, and then a little later they decided not too. They are perfectly capable of paying back the money, but just decided they didn't want to, and it seems the laws of your state said you couldn't make them. How would you feel about that? Since this is supposed to be an answer to the question, the answer is: ""only if you can't afford to repay it"". That's what foreclosure is supposed to be about, not you deciding you would rather not pay your debts. Let's not forget who pays that bill for you - every one of your bank's other customers. EDIT:For the people decrying the moral aspect and saying ""it's perfectly alright because the law says that's the punishment and I'm willing to pay it"", the law also says ""if you kill someone, you go to prison for life"". Does that mean that someone who decides they are going to kill someone has a perfect right to do it as long as they are prepared to take the consequences?" "With (1), it's rather confusing as to where ""interest"" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan." I have been in this situation and I essentially went for the truthful answer.  I first explained that co-signing for a loan wasn't just vouching for the person, which I certainly would do, but it was putting my name on the loan and making me the person they loan company would go after if a payment was ever missed. Then I explained that even within married couples, money can be a major source of strife and fights, it would be even worse for someone not quite as close like a family member or friend. Essentially I wouldn't want to risk my relationship with a good friend or family member over some financial matter. "Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators, and you, the student borrower, are their legal prey. They look at you and think, ""food."" My friend said she never pays her student loans and nothing has happened.  She's wrong. Something has happened. She just doesn't know about it yet. Each unpaid bill, with penalties, has been added to the balance of her loan.  Now she owes that money also. And she owes interest on it. That balance is probably building up very fast indeed. She's playing right into the hands of her student lender. They are smiling about this. When the balance gets large enough to make it worthwhile, her student lender will retain an aggressive collection agency to recover the entire balance. The agency will come after her in court, and they are likely to win.  If your friend lives in the US, she'll discover that she can't declare bankruptcy to escape this. She has the bankruptcy ""reform"" act of 2006, passed during the Bush 43 regime, to thank for this. A court judgement against her will make it harder for her to find a job and even a spouse. I'm not saying this is right or just. I believe it is wrong and unjust to make university graduates into debt slaves. But it is true. As for being paid under the table, I hope your friend intends on dying rather than retiring when she no longer can work due to age. If she's paid under the table she will not be eligible for social security payments.  You need sixteen calendar quarters of social security credit to be eligible for payments.  I know somebody like this. It's a hell of a way to live, especially on weekends when the local church feeding programs don't operate.  Paying people under the table ought to be a felony for the business owner." Generally speaking, granting rights to one bank account (e.g. making a joint account) does not extend rights to other accounts or otherwise let one joint owner create new obligations on the other owner (e.g. opening a line of credit that the other owner must pay for), except to the extent of the joint account.  I assume there are no UK rules that would change this feature. The other party can of course withdraw all the money without need for your approval.  This also means that the joint account could be exposed to all the creditors of either party.  If your account joint tenant has huge debts, the creditors could theoretically look to the joint account for satisfaction.  At least, that would be an issue under US law. Frankly, it may be simpler to get a separate account for the other person (if possible) and make transfers with online banking.  It could also make sense to get a rechargeable banking card, if those are in the UK, which works like a debit card and can be reloaded through various means (sometimes a call, sometimes online deposits, sometimes in physical stores).  There may be fees to getting such a card or a second account, of course.  The benefit is that the cardholder has no access to your account and you control recharging.  Such cards are widely available in the US to people who otherwise would not qualify for traditional bank accounts. Note also the FATCA complication with adding a US person to your account.  My understanding is that a number of non-US banks will simply close the accounts of Americans, rather than deal with FFI hassles under FATCA. Legally, I can't find any reason that the LLC could not lend money to an individual. However, I believe the simplest course of action is to first distribute money from your company to your personal account, and then make it a personal loan. Whether the loan is done through the business or personally, financially I don't think there is much difference as to which bucket the interest income goes into, since your business and personal income will all get lumped together anyway with a single person LLC. Even if your friend defaults on the loan, either the business or you personally will have the same burden of proof to meet that the loan was not a gift to begin with, and if that burden is met, the deduction can be taken from either side. If a debt goes bad the debtor may be required to report the debt as income. "It would have to be made as a ""gift"", and then the return would be a ""gift"" back to you, because you're not allowed to use a loan for a down payment. This is not to evade taxes.  This is to evade a credit check.  The problem is that banks don't like people to have too much debt.  The bank could void the loan and go after your friends for damages under certain circumstances, as this is a fraud on the bank.  Perhaps you might be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud or similar.   I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that there is zero chance of your friend not paying you back intentionally.  But even so, there are still potential problems.  What if your friends end up without the money to pay?  Worse, what if something happens to them?  This is an off-books transaction.  You couldn't make a claim against the estate, as there can't be a paper trail.  You'd be left out the money in those circumstances.   You'd both be safer if your friends saved up for the next opportunity rather than trying to grab this one.   An alternative would be to buy a share of their current rental house.  That would give them the necessary money and would give you paper showing your money.  It's not a gift, it's a purchase.  You'd have to pay capital gains tax on the 15% profit that they're promising you.  But you'd both be above board and honest." I would advise against this, answering only the first part of question #1. Borrowing and lending money among friends and family members can often ruin relationships.  While it can sometimes be done successfully, this is most likely not the case.  All parties involved have to approach this uniquely in order for it to work.  This would include your son's future significant other.  Obviously you have done very well financially, congratulations.  Your view for your son might be for him to pay you off ASAP:   Even after becoming a doctor, continue to live like a student until the loan is paid off.   His view might be more conventional; get the car and house and pay off my loans before I am 50.  He may start with your view, but two years in he marries a woman that pressures him to be more conventional.   My advice would be to give if you can afford to, but if not, do not lend.  If you decide to lend then come up with a very clear agreement on the repayment schedule and consequences of non-payment.  You may want to see a lawyer. For the rest of it, interest payments received are taxable. I'd be interested in seeing a source regarding the transposing of signatures onto different documents.  That's blatant criminal fraud without even falling into a grey area.  About math, a study ran in the Economist showed that people who were bad at relatively basic math (understanding fractions, interest, percentages) were far more likely to have requested loans they could not afford. "Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (""rehypothecation""). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right.  I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares ""for a very short time"". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect ""pocketing the interest"" since interest accrues as a function of time." This is fraud and could lead to jail time. The vast majority of people cannot obtain such loans without collateral and one would have to have a healthy income and good credit to obtain that kind of loan to purchase something secured by a valuable asset, such as a home. Has this been done before?  Yes, despite it being the US, you may find this article interesting.     Hopefully, you see how the intent of this hypothetical situation is stealing. "My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter.  It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say ""almost"" only because I dislike absolutes).  Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option.  But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing."