Leo vs Jimmy – Decision

I held that the $500 was an unenforceable penalty, rather than interest.

The current statutory rate of interest is 9% annually, making the sum of $500, a sum unrelated to the time between the default on the loan and the entry of judgment, incorrect in my opinion and possibly usurious.

I told Leo that the Court Clerk will properly add statutory interest from the default date to the date of the judgment, which, while less than $500, was the right (and legal) thing to do.

Do you agree?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInPrintShare

7 thoughts on “Leo vs Jimmy – Decision

  1. Yo, Arb Man! I think that Leo, the wall st trader should donate the dough to Jimmy. What was he thinking in the first place. Move on, Leo!

  2. Ok so we agree it’s a penalty. Yes, I also agree with awarding Leo the loan of $2,500 and adding the statutory interest from the default date to the date of judgment.

    • I have a different take on this. I am of the opinion that unless one makes loans as a business, one simply takes one’s chances. I take it as a given that one does not loan money unless one can afford to do so regardless of whether it is paid back or not. Kind of like gambling and/or charity. I think Leo was generous and Jimmy probably was unable to repay him. Maybe my opinion is not ‘legally’ correct but I don’t think Leo should have any recourse or interest. Leo probably won’t lend money in future and Jimmy will soon run out of generous friends.

Leave a Reply

Email is not required to leave a comment. Subscribe below to follow the discussion of this post.

Please answer the math question. *