Whenever Bob owes Alice, then Alice has reason to look after Bob, to the extent that increases the chance he satisfies the debt.
Yet at the same time, Bob has an incentive for Alice to disappear, insofar as it would relieve him.
This is a case where you shouldn’t oversimplify then extrapolate from the over-simple model. In most real-world formal debts, disappearance of the debtor or creditor does not void the debt. If Bob disappears, Alice collects from Bob’s estate. If Alice disappears, Alice’s heirs collect from Bob. In cases where collection is uncertain, the terms of the debt are generally worse, so the lender is paid for the risk they’re taking. In many other cases, the debt is informal and not seriously enforceable, so disappearance isn’t necessary, just unwillingness/inability to pay.
And you CERTAINLY shouldn’t try to reason from a book about an instance of an extremely formalized and evolved set of laws and agreements that are already far from generality about debt. The story is interesting, but doesn’t tell you much about other forms of debt.
In most real-world formal debts, disappearance of the debtor or creditor does not void the debt. If Bob disappears, Alice collects from Bob’s estate. If Alice disappears, Alice’s heirs collect from Bob.
That seems interesting to me. I presume this is the case in large part because of some combination of laws and judicial precedents. So, exactly what legal things are involved here?
I’m not sure I understand your question. In the modern world, financial debt exists entirely in the world of laws and judicial precedents. Informal or non-monetary debts probably don’t have the legal system at their root, but they almost all will have evolved different ways of handling the “disappear or make your lender disappear” strategy.
You should consider attending law school, I guess. There’s a LARGE body of contract and debt-collection law and precedent, and relatedly, inheritance and probate law. It’s worth reading your credit card or mortgage agreement to get a sense of it.
I think you’re making a really large ask when one can do a simple google search to get a good start. One could also just access one of the several LLM available online, pose the question and work through some subsequent questions with the LLM.
However, in light of being helpful and making positive and not just negative contributions I think you’ll find this goole search link of immediate help in getting started on answering your own questions.
For large enough cases, changing the legal system is a way to make the debtor/lender “disappear.” Ownership and debt are both based on society-level agreement.
This is a case where you shouldn’t oversimplify then extrapolate from the over-simple model. In most real-world formal debts, disappearance of the debtor or creditor does not void the debt. If Bob disappears, Alice collects from Bob’s estate. If Alice disappears, Alice’s heirs collect from Bob. In cases where collection is uncertain, the terms of the debt are generally worse, so the lender is paid for the risk they’re taking. In many other cases, the debt is informal and not seriously enforceable, so disappearance isn’t necessary, just unwillingness/inability to pay.
And you CERTAINLY shouldn’t try to reason from a book about an instance of an extremely formalized and evolved set of laws and agreements that are already far from generality about debt. The story is interesting, but doesn’t tell you much about other forms of debt.
That seems interesting to me. I presume this is the case in large part because of some combination of laws and judicial precedents. So, exactly what legal things are involved here?
I’m not sure I understand your question. In the modern world, financial debt exists entirely in the world of laws and judicial precedents. Informal or non-monetary debts probably don’t have the legal system at their root, but they almost all will have evolved different ways of handling the “disappear or make your lender disappear” strategy.
Sorry that I wasn’t clear.
I want to know which laws and judicial precedents are most relevant to the situation that you are describing.
You should consider attending law school, I guess. There’s a LARGE body of contract and debt-collection law and precedent, and relatedly, inheritance and probate law. It’s worth reading your credit card or mortgage agreement to get a sense of it.
Sure, that’s one option, but requires a lot of time.
I have no doubt that this is true. Are you aware of a good short introduction?
I agree with you, but I’ve already done this.
I think you’re making a really large ask when one can do a simple google search to get a good start. One could also just access one of the several LLM available online, pose the question and work through some subsequent questions with the LLM.
However, in light of being helpful and making positive and not just negative contributions I think you’ll find this goole search link of immediate help in getting started on answering your own questions.
For large enough cases, changing the legal system is a way to make the debtor/lender “disappear.” Ownership and debt are both based on society-level agreement.