The word "bondage" came to the Russian language from Arabic through the Tatars. Its main meaning was a loan receipt. Usurious bondage meant the payment of interest for the use of borrowed money. And usurers are the ancestors of modern banks.
The meaning of the bonded deal
Today the word "bondage" is used as an adjective to the concept of "deal". The meaning of the "bonded deal" is now somewhat different from what it was in the old days.
An onerous deal is a deal made on extremely unfavorable terms for one of the parties. As a rule, it is concluded under some compelling circumstances of the side that remains the loser.
A typical example of an onerous transaction is the sale of an apartment or a car at a price below market price due to the urgent need to repay the debt. Sometimes, of course, a loan agreement or a pledge receipt at a pawnshop is called an onerous deal, but in a legal sense, such documents are completely legal, because everywhere they sign a formal agreement, where they undertake to return the amount with interest.
Signs of an onerous deal
For an onerous deal, the following signs are characteristic:
- is committed as a result of the confluence of insurmountable difficult circumstances;
- is disadvantageous for one of the parties;
- one of the parties deliberately takes advantage of the difficult circumstances of the other.
An onerous deal is a complex and confusing legal concept. Today there is no well-established judicial practice that would make it possible to unambiguously judge whether a deal is such or not.
On the one hand, everything is clear. There is a very specific definition of an onerous deal, but, unfortunately, in a legal sense, this description does not mean anything. On the other hand, any of the points must be proven either by documentary or by expert evidence. Despite the fact that in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Civil Code of the Russian Federation) there are concepts of committing actions under the influence of violence, deception, threat, malicious collusion, in fact it is extremely difficult to prove them.
Therefore, there are few positive solutions in disputes related to bonded deals. Too easily all the explanations of the victims are overturned by the lawyers of the guilty persons. There are too many subtleties, nuances and obligations in the "small print". For example, the self-interest of the guilty party easily "falls apart", it is enough to express the version that the injured party was not sufficiently informed, illiterate, or, in general, showed unprecedented generosity. It is impossible to dispute such statements.
On a par with enslaving deals are those that are committed as a result of fraudulent activities. The fact of fraud is also quite difficult to prove, especially if the evidence is circumstantial and the witnesses are unreliable.
