SomaliNet Forums

A man lends another man 100 bucks. They see each other n another day and start walking the same direction. On the way, the lender asks for his money and the borrower says I don't have it now. Then they are stopped by a roadblock (isbaro by corrupt police) The cops ask for ransom money and the borrower says I have this 100 dollar bill and I can't give it to u because I owe it to this thisman. He hands it to the lender and says here's your money, god is witness. The cops take the $ from the lender. Then the two men are let go. The lender calls for arbitration and argues the borrower cheated him by first saying he had no money and handing it in front of corrupt cops. The borrower says I returned the money and you and God are witness. Who is @ fault?

My take: the borrower should pay back $50.

The borrower is a con man and should give the 100 bucks back since he lied.

abgaalKING wrote:The borrower is a con man and should give the 100 bucks back since he lied.

king, yes but his argument is true when he said he paid back in full and the lender is not denying it.

assuming the borrower admitted he owe the 100$. i agree with $50 , but if i was the judge i would fine the guy the other $50! so for wasting the court time, he had to pay 50$ to the court. so in the end he didnt get 50$. karma is ....

I would fine the debtor 150 for being a crook and liar.

If the isbaaro operators took the money illegally by force, the borrower would be the one that made it possible. His conscience should dictate that he's at fault and still owes the man his $100. Since he chooses to ignore it or maybe lacks it altogether, the victim has to realise that he's been screwed and decide how to make him suffer. Or maybe just take it on the chin and let Allah deal with it

If i was the Judge i would have ruled the borrower to pay the full $100 to the lender since he refused to pay when he was asked give him back when it was clear it will be taken regardless of who is holding it.

waryaa wrote:A man lends another man 100 bucks. They see each other n another day and start walking the same direction. On the way, the lender asks for his money and the borrower says I don't have it now. Then they are stopped by a roadblock (isbaro by corrupt police) The cops ask for ransom money and the borrower says I have this 100 dollar bill and I can't give it to u because I owe it to this thisman. He hands it to the lender and says here's your money, god is witness. The cops take the $ from the lender. Then the two men are let go. The lender calls for arbitration and argues the borrower cheated him by first saying he had no money and handing it in front of corrupt cops. The borrower says I returned the money and you and God are witness. Who is @ fault?

My take: the borrower should pay back $50.

Legally he paid his debt, since there was no agreement between them on how, when or where to pay the debt.

WestLdnShawty wrote:Did the lender take the money of the borrower? If yes I would settle with the £50 back suggestion.. If not.. Then the borrower should return the full amount he borrowed..

Money dealing is one of a few ways you can truly get to know a person.. If I was the lender I would let it go.. £100 is a cheap way to get rid of someone *He'll never ask you for money or bother you ever again*..

WestLdnShawty,

If only it was that simple, some people will have the nerve to ask for more.

no one should pay anybody. the money belong to the corrupt cop. Waa Caalaf.

If the isbaaro mafia took 100 from the lender, he have paid 50 for himself to be free and another 50 for the borrower to be free. so the borrower needs to pay back the amount of money which was paid by the lender for his release from the isbaaro mafia. after all set and done, the lender should ruin the borrower's credit in the city so that he may not recieve any other loan in the near future unless he ask for forgiveness and admit to wrong doing.

DafIyoMiriq wrote:

waryaa wrote:A man lends another man 100 bucks. They see each other n another day and start walking the same direction. On the way, the lender asks for his money and the borrower says I don't have it now. Then they are stopped by a roadblock (isbaro by corrupt police) The cops ask for ransom money and the borrower says I have this 100 dollar bill and I can't give it to u because I owe it to this thisman. He hands it to the lender and says here's your money, god is witness. The cops take the $ from the lender. Then the two men are let go. The lender calls for arbitration and argues the borrower cheated him by first saying he had no money and handing it in front of corrupt cops. The borrower says I returned the money and you and God are witness. Who is @ fault?

My take: the borrower should pay back $50.

Legally he paid his debt, since there was no agreement between them on how, when or where to pay the debt.

This is why we have sharci...even in business dealings. You are not allowed to make a loan deal if you do not agree on the maturity period (waqtiga lasoo celinayo), hadhaw waxaa ku dhici doontaa isqabqabsi sida sheekadaas dhacday.

If for instance, they agreed that the debtor will pay him back in full when he has the ability to do so, then clearly in this case, the debtor said he cannot pay it back now. Because of this, wax kasta waxay kusoo laabtaa asalka. The debtor cannot retract his words when his actions were clear enough to show that he placed 100 dollars on the lenders hand in a bid to escape isbaaro and yet dishonestly claim to have honoured his debt. This action was one of deceit. The money extortion by the isbaaro officers was arbitrary albeit an unfortunate loss for the borrower here, so it will be treated like it never happened. So those 100 dollars are still incumbent on the borrower.

If there was no agreement on the maturity period then it is due to the irresponsibility of the lender because he is the baayi3 (seller) so the borrower is free of charge.

PrinceDaadi wrote:If i was the Judge i would have ruled the borrower to pay the full $100 to the lender since he refused to pay when he was asked give him back when it was clear it will be taken regardless of who is holding it.

This.

Technically speaking he did return the money and the lender did take it back....the lender at the point of receiving the money should have refused to accept it back, so he does have an argument there. Laakinse, having said that it is obvious the borrower did not intend to return the money to the lender since he said he didn't have it when he was asked to pay it back and as such should be required to pay it back since he knew the money was not going to go back to the lender when he gave it back considering the cicumstances. I would probably ask him to pay the lender back and ask him not to be too cheeky next time.