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)

  • notabot@lemm.eeEnglish
    6·
    6 hours ago

    As I understand it, you were not compelled to sign the contract, so did so of your own free will, and likewise took an action, namely leaving the country, of your own free will that directly lead to you being in breach of contract by breaching your contract with your bank.

    None if that is the fault if the party you had a contract with, so you’ll likely be considered at fault. It is up to you to remedy the situation, deal with any penalties you’ve incurred and return to compliance with the contract.

    I don’t know which country you are in, but you may have luck with an international bank that has branches in your current country and your original one.

    • LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zoneOPEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      You’re probably right. But certainly I have seen laws that push back in situations where the party with the greatest amount of power and privilige subjects the other party to various factors outside of their control, where the law counters that to mitigate unfairness.

      The GDPR exhibits this with a “fairness” clause, which the EDPB reflects on as follows:

      EDPB interpretation of fairness clause
      • Non-exploitation – The controller should not exploit the needs or vulnerabilities of data subjects.
      • Power balance – Power balance should be a key objective of the controller-data subject relationship. Power imbalances should be avoided. When this is not possible, they should be recognised and accounted for with suitable countermeasures.
      • No risk transfer – Controllers should not transfer the risks of the enterprise to the data subjects.
      • Respect rights – The controller must respect the fundamental rights of data subjects and implement appropriate measures and safeguards and not impinge on those rights unless expressly justified by law.
      • Ethical – The controller should see the processing’s wider impact on individuals’ rights and dignity.

      None of that applies to my non-GDPR situation, but just an example of law that tries the shift burden of risks back onto the party with the most power. Labor law often has rules to protect workers from becoming subject to risks and factors outside of their control. In my case I need to look more at credit and debt laws, where the creditors tend to have disproportionate power. The UK’s legal tender law is one such tool to relieve debtors from the disempowerment of forced banking (which is weak where I am but there may be another mechanism).

      took an action, namely leaving the country, of your own free will

      It’s perhaps worth noting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.13:

      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
      2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

      That does not necessarily contradict anything you said, but I think it is a bit harsh for a creditor to make debtors choose between their human rights and satisfying their contractual obligations.

      • notabot@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        4 hours ago

        The clauses you quoted from the GDPR refer to data processing, not contract law in general. I understand your point about a power imbalance, but I doubt any court would see requiring a bank account in the country to be particularly onerous as the situation was entirely within your control. I doubt it would be seen as an imposition on your rights either as you are still free to move, you just needed to arrange appropriate banking first. As I mentioned, take a look for an international bank, they may be able to help.