machinebike

This may sound silly, but......

Recommended Posts

what is the loan given by the bank?

I see loan written on documents but what was the loan?

id think with a 30 year work obligation, the documents would be more specific. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank gives you $$$ to buy the house - you give them the right to take the house if you fail to pay back the loan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st step

can you please be more specific concerning what type of loan was receieved because no $$$ came into my hands.:-(

Edited by machinebike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was probably paid to the sellers bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The money to pay for the house...

1ST STEP, I'd like to have specific detail concerning 'money'.

I understand 'money' can be anything that has

'self containing' value.

What was the money given to the seller? :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK OK OK it wasn't money it was binary code (0010010101001) but thats money to a bank!

1ST STEP, I'd like to have specific detail concerning 'money'.

I understand 'money' can be anything that has

'self containing' value.

What was the money given to the seller? :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK OK OK it wasn't money it was binary code (0010010101001) but thats money to a bank!

BeerGoggles,

Why is a binary code 'money' to the bank. What exactlyis a binary code, interesting....

but still doesnt asnwer my question, what money (valuable consideration) was given to the buyer that can be considered a 'loan'? :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not sure where you hope to go with this...

When we bought our house, in return for giving us title to the land and structures on the land, and us giving that title to the bank as collateral, the bank actually wrote out a cashier's check to the seller for the purchase price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still not sure where you hope to go with this...

When we bought our house, in return for giving us title to the land and structures on the land, and us giving that title to the bank as collateral, the bank actually wrote out a cashier's check to the seller for the purchase price.

A cashiers check is general, it could be a draft (letter of credit) used to "purchase" the house.

Id like to know the 'valuable consideration' used to "buy" the house.

:-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's world, nobody hands the seller $200,000 in small unmarked bills. All housing purchases are done by check or even by wire transfer from one bank to another.

Are you thinking that because no actual cash traded hands, the contract is somehow null and void?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In today's world, nobody hands the seller $200,000 in small unmarked bills. All housing purchases are done by check or even by wire transfer from one bank to another.

Are you thinking that because no actual cash traded hands, the contract is somehow null and void?

Im trying to understand the 'valuable consideration'.

even if small unmarked bills were used, thats not a valauble consderation, because they are what they are called "bills".

If a check was used to "purchase" (make possible to temporarily transfer title), what value was used to "buy" the house, not just purchase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

valuable consideration n. a necessary element of a contract, which confers a benefit on the other party. Valuable consideration can include money, work, performance, assets, a promise, or abstaining from an act

In the formation of a valid and binding contract, something of worth or value that is either a detriment incurred by the person making the promise or a benefit received by the other person.

In contract law consideration is required as an inducement to enter into a contract that is enforceable in the courts. It is an essential element for the formation of a contract. What constitutes sufficient consideration, however, has been the subject of continuing legal debate. Contracts and courts generally use the term valuable consideration to signify consideration sufficient to sustain an enforceable agreement.

In general, consideration consists of a promise to perform a desired act or a promise to refrain from doing an act that one is legally entitled to do. Thus, a person who seeks to enforce a promise must have paid or obligated herself to pay money, delivered goods, expended time and labor, or forgone some other profitable activity or legal right. For example, in a contract for the sale of goods the money paid is the valuable consideration for the vendor, and the property sold is the consideration for the purchaser.

In early Common Law nominal consideration was sufficient to establish a contract. The consideration could be as small as a peppercorn or a cent as long as it demonstrated that the parties intended to enter into an agreement. Eventually, the courts developed the requirement of valuable consideration, but what constitutes it has varied over time. Valuable consideration does not necessarily have to be equal in value to what is received, and it need not be translatable into dollars and cents. It is sufficient for the consideration to consist of a performance or a promise to perform that the promisor (the person making the promise) regards as having value. It is not essential that the person to whom the consideration moves should be benefited, provided the person from whom it moves is, in a legal sense, injured. The injury can consist of refusing to sue on a disputed claim or to exercise a legal right. The alteration in position is regarded as a detriment that forms consideration independent of the actual value of the right relinquished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beer goggles,

For something to be refered as "money", it needs to contain value within itself..."self contained value".

Examples of money:

Gold...can be used to conduct electricity, used for jewelry etc...Gold has self contained value.

Water.. we need it to live, its nutritous, we can drink,bath with it, etc... water has self contained value.

Gasoline, kerosine, etc... more examples of self contained value.

federal Reserve Notes: Negative value, cost 2 cents to make, and we are charged a fee for each Note in circulation, we cannot eat nor drink, etc...So the Notes do NOT have self contained value and cannot be considerered as value (without some form of value being externally added). These notes act as "reciepts" that represent something of value but are not the value by themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beer goggles,

For something to be refered as "money", it needs to contain value within itself..."self contained value".

Examples of money:

Gold...can be used to conduct electricity, used for jewelry etc...Gold has self contained value.

Water.. we need it to live, its nutritous, we can drink,bath with it, etc... water has self contained value.

Gasoline, kerosine, etc... more examples of self contained value.

federal Reserve Notes: Negative value, cost 2 cents to make, and we are charged a fee for each Note in circulation, we cannot eat nor drink, etc...So the Notes do NOT have self contained value and cannot be considerered as value (without some form of value being externally added). These notes act as "reciepts" that represent something of value but are not the value by themselves.

Courts don't agree with you. Just a few examples:

"Plaintiff contends "Federal Reserve Notes" are not valuable consideration like gold or silver, and, therefore, the loan agreement is unenforceable. It is not clear, however, whether Plaintiff seeks to rescind the original mortgage loan for his home or the loan from Sterling Savings Bank on this basis or both.

Plaintiff cites 'article 1, section 10, Constitution for the united states, 1789' to support his position that only gold or silver can serve as legal tender in the United States. This misreading of the Constitution has been raised and rejected in the courts for decades, and this Court need not recount in detail the long history of court decisions regarding this frivolous argument." Robertson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Dist. Court, D. Oregon 2011

"Schiefen also pleads insufficient consideration securing the promissory note which is the subject of this suit because, Schiefen alleges, the FmHA loaned funds by 'creating `money' of Intangible value by a bookkeeping entry[.]'"

"Schiefen's argument that United States currency is unbacked paper has been rejected by numerous courts." US v. Schiefen, 926 F. Supp. 877 - Dist. Court, D. South Dakota 1995

"In fact, '[w]hile dollar bills and coins have been declared by Congress as legal tender, see 31 U.S.C. ยง 5103, and so can be used to pay any debt, not all debts need be paid in legal tender if the parties agree.' Id. In this case, Citibank properly issued a check to the plaintiffs as a loan, secured by a mortgage. As demonstrated by their acceptance of the benefits of this transaction, the plaintiffs agreed to Citibank's use a negotiable instrument instead of legal tender." Rene v. CITIBANK NA, 32 F. Supp. 2d 539 - Dist. Court, ED New York 1999

"Moreover, plaintiffs' 'vapor money' theory has no basis in law. It has been squarely addressed and rejected by various courts throughout the country for over twenty years." See, e.g., Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortg. Co., 615 F. Supp. 898 (C.D. Ind. 1985).

"His argument, that only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender by the United States, is hopeless and frivolous, having been rejected finally by the United States Supreme Court one hundred years ago." Foret v. Wilson, 725 F. 2d 254 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning "legal" tender, there is a difference between legal and lawful.

Legal is based on codes OF law or a "color" (imitation) of law. Law is based on what is real.

Artificial money can be "legal" tender because legal refers to an imitation/code/color "of" law.

The judges being asked are part of the "legal" system. They cannot go against their oath what they are a part of, it could be like firing themselves.

Gold cannot be legal tender because Gold is REAL and a Legal system is based on the opposite.

Edited by machinebike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right....it does sound silly.

If as a group/country/world designate X as currency, then it's currency no matter what X is....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is the loan given by the bank?

I see loan written on documents but what was the loan?

id think with a 30 year work obligation, the documents would be more specific. :cry:

I was answering your first post.

By the way, a note is NOT a 30 year work obligation.

A promissory note is an agreement to pay back a specified sum over a set period of time at a given rate of interest according to the terms set by the borrower and the lender (together).

If you as the borrower decide to pay the note off early you can do so at any time during the 30 year term in your example. There may or may not be a fee to pay the note off early.

The note does not obligate you to work. Coming up with the money to pay the note may obligate you to work, but that is a whole different issue and is not addressed in the note.

That's why your post was silly. Just because you put two statements together it doesn't mean that one is related to the other in any fashion. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terms are set by the borrower and the lender.

If the borrower doesn't like the terms, its up to the borrower to negotiate the terms that are acceptable to the borrower or find another lender.

If the borrower accepts the terms, then they sign the note and mortgage.

The rest of your statements don't make sense to me. Maybe someone else can jump in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Concerning money....no money is being payed back. you are paying off a debt with the Federal Reserve notes being created as you work.

Like it or not, "Federal Reserve notes" are an acceptable form of currency. That argument isn't going to work for you. It's been used in the courts and never works.

As Denita stated, if you don't like the terms of the documents that you read, agreed to, and signed, try to renegotiate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says their has to be "self contained value" in money?

That in itself is a spurious argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.