3 ms·

> he had no money to pay it back, ergo it's fair to conclude he had no intention of paying i don't think that would stand in any court. the former doesn't imp

• raesene6 10y ago
  Whilst IANAL, it would seem logical that a court would look at whether the defendant could reasonably have expected to be able to pay back a loan. If I have a say $50k/year job and borrow say $200k I could reasonably have expected to pay it back, if I then lose my job I could say I had intended to do so but circumstances changed. if I have $0/year as a job and borrow $2 million, you're not seriously suggesting that any reasonable person would buy "oh I totally was going to pay it back" are you?
  • vpalanc1 10y ago
    What if I play it on blackjack? It may be incredibly poor judgement on my part, by what if I totally intended to win & pay it back, with interest? My point is that if I didn't actually do anything to deceive you into giving me money (like, I didn't claim that I have a millionaire father who's going to give you the money in case I lose at blackjack) - then it's not really deception on my part; it's just error and/or poor judgement on your part for handing me the money.