2 thoughts on “despre diplomatica si efecte juridice

  1. IMHO the media report is incomplete (besides the misleading caption). The interesting question is: what happens next? In my country I would expect that debtor should return the actually borrowed money and pay the interest according to the Central Bank’s rate.

    I wonder how Romanian legislation interprets the term “signature”. For example, in the US there is clear legal definition (and in that sense the mentioned microloan was probably signed). In Russia there is no such definition, and that results in interesting hurdles and possibilities.

    • For the signature in digital environment, among two parties, the Romanian law asks for the minimum (i.e., a writing under private signature) that an electronic record should bear an advanced digital signature.

      Also, it may be (I am not sure) that, for a bank loan, the law also require a certain (documentary) form for the contract. So, it may not only be the signature issue, but also the form that may not have been respected.

      I think it was a case based on procedural mistakes. Grounded on the loan contract, the bank (well, the website :P) attempted to enforce the recovery of the loan. But they did not have the right to do it, because the contract was not valid. The trial was against the enforcement. So, basically, the borrower did not deny the loan, but there is no legal ground to force him to redraw the money :)))

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s