cross-posted from: https://linkage.ds8.zone/post/341870
I signed an agreement with a creditor that obligates me to pay them using a bank inside the country. This was fine initially but then I moved out of the country and the acct was closed. Other banks will not open an account for me and the creditor refuses cash. So the creditor is treating me like a non-payer to a quite harsh extent.
I have over-simplified here but I just want to know very generally what the common practices are around the world for contract law situations where someone without much bargaining power signs a contract that obligates them to do something that’s only achievable if other 3rd-parties agree to serve them, and then those other 3rd-parties later refuse.
BTW, I am not interested in advice on situational hacks and angles like “find a friend to pay for you”. I want to know how courts treat the situation when all options have failed. Are people typically held accountable for agreeing to something which relied on actions of others?
(the situation is not in the UK but I am still interested in answers as to how these kinds of situations are dealt with in the UK)
I suspected that. It is interesting to know indeed. That is also the case in the US, where contracts cannot trump legal tender law.
But I believe I’m in a cash-unfriendly country where legal tender does not distinguish debts from points of sale and contracts trump law in this case, so I am still mainly interested in knowing the very general legal theories in contract law for situations where someone is bound by the actions of those not a party to the contract.
Another example: what if a contract required someone to obtain and maintain a mobile phone service, then later in the contract SIM registration is implemented and the obligated party cannot get service because their ID card is rejected or they don’t meet whatever KYC requirements? Hypothetical, but I am increasingly finding myself in situations where a supplier of some kind forces me to be served in some way by some other service.
Really seems off that I can be contractually obligated in a way that requires action by others. Fair enough if I have to make an effort to get served by a 3rd party, but when the effort fails I’m very annoyed that I might be accountable for the consequences.
Guess as IANAL. But in your described situation in the UK, the contract would still be valid. As you, leaving the nation of its jurisdiction was entirely your choice/responsibility.
But if the banks closed down, or it was actually choices of the bank/3rd party. Rather than your actions and the bank’s legal jurisdiction. Then the question would require a court to decide unless parties are propared to compromise.
You will generally find banks in the UK have rules over what type of customers they are allowed to accept. Depending on the banking authority, they are under. (IE investment vs consumer banking). And placing yourself in a situation where you’re failing to meet those rules. Would be considered your responsibility, not the 3rd party/bank. The same would be true of any other 3rd party agreement. Unless the agreement is illegal. (IE legal tender etc) Your ability to qualify is seen as your actions.
Legal tender also has some hoops to jump through, you can’t just scream legal tender and throw physical money at your creditor¹. If I remember rightly you need to lodge it with the courts and then it basically prevents you from being sued as the money is there to pick up. Or rather they can begin the process but it is resolved and the court won’t assist them in recovering it in other ways.
Of course I don’t think it does anything to protect your credit rating, though the documents might help you dispute the record and get it cleared.
IIRC in the US it’s written simply that if you leave legal tender in the creditor’s possession, your debt is reduced by that amount regardless of what they do with it. But of course gathering evidence in that case can be dicey.
There was a guy in Germany who fought the forced use of electronic payment for radio licensing fees that way. He escrowed it in a blocked account so that the gov could not claim he was just looking to evade the fees. It seems like a good approach.