3 ms·
What's the price they're required to offer the debtor in that scenario? How does anyone know that's a fair price when there has been no other offers? Why should
by conductr 4y ago
What's the price they're required to offer the debtor in that scenario? How does anyone know that's a fair price when there has been no other offers? Why should it be the debtor that benefits from the lender's misfortunes?
This whole thing reeks of entitlement to me. If you take out a loan expect to pay it off. Don't expect that if the lender goes belly up that means you got some get out of jail free card.
- biotinker 4y agoTo your first two questions, the Right Of First Refusal[0] has a long history of being a financial instrument for just about anything. I see no reason why this would be something different. The current system, to me, has just as much entitlement, just from the other side. Why should it be some unrelated party that benefits from the lender's misfortunes. The lending is between two parties, and it seems reasonable to keep it that way unless both parties agree not to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal