Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

House repossession rates are far too low

13567…12

Comments

  • #62
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Those going on about personal responsibility, never seem to pay any attention to the responsibility shared by others, and their requirement to share the burden; things such as:
    - Banks deliberately and fraudulently inflating property prices
    - Banks lending recklessly
    - Both of the above causing homeowners to go into greater debt, in order to buy houses
    - Lack of adequate government regulation, in preventing/counteracting the above
    - The economic crisis caused by banks and the government, putting people out of jobs, and making them unable to meet mortgage payments
    - Massive incompetence on behalf of government and the EU, in failing to put in place proper recovery policies (which would have resolved much of this issue, by providing jobs that allow people to pay their mortgages)

    Massive shared fault there, with barely any responsibility being put onto parties in the banks (barely anyone held accountable, or in jail for fraud), and people are blind to the need for banks as well as government, to share the cost of this, not to lump it all onto homeowners.

    The grand majority of these indebted homeowners had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, and they have been screwed by circumstances, that the banks created, and which government negligently failed to prevent or resolve; kicking these homeowners out onto the street, and wiping away everything they've already put into the homes (years of their lives working, to earn the money to meet mortgage payments), would be a pretty callous and needless act, which would benefit the banks (and many of the investors) that caused and contributed to the crisis, at a massive social cost.


    Did they frog march you to the bank at gunpoint to sign on the dotted line?


  • #63
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    JRant wrote: »
    There is a valid point being made though regarding the low repossesion rates and its somewhat unfair to infer anyone with this opinion as a scavanger. Some people just want to be able to afford their own homes. As it stands now anyone looking to buy now has to contend with;
    difficulty getting approval due to the banks reluctance to lend
    Higher interest rates to cover the bad debt already in the system
    Unrealistic house prices, with the market price still being rigged.

    Now i'm in no way advocating wholesale repossessions as it would be terrible for society as a whole but in some cases there is just no other option.

    There is a hell of alot of posters on here who want people's property to devalue more just so they can afford to buy. What does that say?


  • #64
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    We are well below bubble levels. People talk about the banks being the property of the tax payer and there shouldn't be a write down of debt, yet I see alot of the same people calling for repossessions which effectively reduces the value of the banks anyway.

    We're well below the prices at the end of the bubble.

    In 96 I had a landlord evict me. Well, not quite evict. He was selling the house. He said sorry but as he put it "Lads, I bought this house for 35k, It's now worth 40k. This can't last. I'd be stupid not to sell now and get out whilst the going is good". That house was well over 300k at the height of the boom. I've just checked and there's two houses in that estate and bone is 250 and one is 350.
    That's well above the 40k it was 15 years ago. You're talking about a 600-800% rise. It would have been close to 1000% at the peak of the boom.

    So yes, property has dropped. But It's still highly inflated.


  • #65
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Did they frog march you to the bank at gunpoint to sign on the dotted line?

    The point still stands that the banks are largely responsible for inflating the market along with buyers/sellers and auctioneers. Collective responsbility is needed. It's not just the general population that needs to learn for this disaster. So too do the banks.


  • #66
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Grayson wrote: »
    To be fair to to OP, he's right. By changing the system so people can go a while without repaying or allowing them to renegotiate their mortgages, we are manipulating the housing market. The system is doing its best to keep the prices high. If more houses went on the market, the overall price would drop putting more people into negative equity. It would also lower the balance that's banks currently have because all the real estate that's locked up in mortgages they own would be worth less.

    But this means we're doing our best to keep prices at bubble levels. And those levels were artificially high.

    That means that it's locking out other buyers from the market. Which causes it to stagnate.

    the government should not be allowed the worst of these mortgage holders to be foreclosed on. But at the same time, they need to create more social housing. This means that people won't go homeless, and the prices will drop. Everyone else will be stuck paging a mortgage for a property that has lost more value.
    But that's fair because technically all normal home-owners bought as somewhere to live. If they bought it with the idea of selling it for more, they were investing, and the government shouldn't be helping them.

    More and more threads,thankfully,are starting to feature the penny dropping in relation to the ownership of residedential property.

    As Grayson points out,the entire Governmental policy thrust remains focused upon kick-starting or otherwise mollycoddling the Property Market.

    This country does not have the economic generation capabilities to sustain mass ownership of resedential property.

    The notion that purchasing a house,as was/is apparently,one's constitutional entitlement then allows the purchaser to live virtually cost-free for the remainder of their lives has surely now been put to bed ?

    The reality is,that in addition to the ongoing costs surrounding the upkeep of the property,the owner is also liable for the associated Social and Infrastructural charges on an ongoing basis.

    What we are witnessing now is merely a rebalancing of the scales which had been totally and falsely tilted in the race to make the Gael a race of property owners.

    Creating the Social Housing Grayson writes of,entails many hundreds of thousands of Irish people becoming once again familiar with paying Rent :eek:....and worse still...to a Local Authority !

    Sadly,our administrators never bothered to use the collapse to delve a little deeper into other more sustainable avenues to facilitate long-term rental and the associated benefits which supporting these would bring.

    Nope,our main goal is to get them oul Starter-Homes selling once more.....:o


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Did they frog march you to the bank at gunpoint to sign on the dotted line?
    I don't have a mortgage. Does a contract signed with the banks, morally validate the shafting they gave homeowners, by (often through fraudulent means) inflating a property bubble, and recklessly loading people with highly risky debt? Does it validate them continuing to screw people over even more, without having to in any way pay for the consequences of their previous immoral, reckless, and fraudulent actions?

    You want to hold one party, the homeowner, strictly to the letter of their contract, while the banks break not just the spirit of, but the letter of the law as well; blind to both the illegality, and most especially to morals.


  • #68
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Those going on about personal responsibility, never seem to pay any attention to the responsibility shared by others, and their requirement to share the burden; things such as:
    - Banks deliberately and fraudulently inflating property prices
    - Banks lending recklessly
    - Both of the above causing homeowners to go into greater debt, in order to buy houses
    - Lack of adequate government regulation, in preventing/counteracting the above
    - The economic crisis caused by banks and the government, putting people out of jobs, and making them unable to meet mortgage payments
    - Massive incompetence on behalf of government and the EU, in failing to put in place proper recovery policies (which would have resolved much of this issue, by providing jobs that allow people to pay their mortgages)

    Massive shared fault there, with barely any responsibility being put onto parties in the banks (barely anyone held accountable, or in jail for fraud), and people are blind to the need for banks as well as government, to share the cost of this, not to lump it all onto homeowners.

    The grand majority of these indebted homeowners had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, and they have been screwed by circumstances, that the banks created, and which government negligently failed to prevent or resolve; kicking these homeowners out onto the street, and wiping away everything they've already put into the homes (years of their lives working, to earn the money to meet mortgage payments), would be a pretty callous and needless act, which would benefit the banks (and many of the investors) that caused and contributed to the crisis, at a massive social cost.

    I kinda agree with shared responsibility.

    Say I live in a country where there's lax gun laws and this is because the gun industry is in bed with the government. It lobbies the government and spends loads on election campaigns. Because of this it's easy to get a gun.
    Now suppose I go out and get a gun. And I shoot someone. Am I any less responsible for my actions? Did anyone (scuse the pun) put a gun to my head and make me kill someone?
    No. I bear full responsibility for my actions. And it's wrong for me to say it's someone else's fault.
    Yes, the government shares responsibility. As do the gun manufacturers and the guy who sold it to me. And they should pay for their actions.
    But that doesn't lessen my responsibility or my punishment.

    Sure the government created an environment where this kind of spending could happen.But no-one made anyone take out a huge mortgage for a property that really wasn't worth it.


  • #69
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Those going on about personal responsibility, never seem to pay any attention to the responsibility shared by others, and their requirement to share the burden; things such as:
    - Banks deliberately and fraudulently inflating property prices
    - Banks lending recklessly
    - Both of the above causing homeowners to go into greater debt, in order to buy houses
    - Lack of adequate government regulation, in preventing/counteracting the above
    - The economic crisis caused by banks and the government, putting people out of jobs, and making them unable to meet mortgage payments
    - Massive incompetence on behalf of government and the EU, in failing to put in place proper recovery policies (which would have resolved much of this issue, by providing jobs that allow people to pay their mortgages)

    Massive shared fault there, with barely any responsibility being put onto parties in the banks (barely anyone held accountable, or in jail for fraud), and people are blind to the need for banks as well as government, to share the cost of this, not to lump it all onto homeowners.

    The grand majority of these indebted homeowners had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, and they have been screwed by circumstances, that the banks created, and which government negligently failed to prevent or resolve; kicking these homeowners out onto the street, and wiping away everything they've already put into the homes (years of their lives working, to earn the money to meet mortgage payments), would be a pretty callous and needless act, which would benefit the banks (and many of the investors) that caused and contributed to the crisis, at a massive social cost.

    No one was forced to sign the contract. If you behave like a lemming you suffer the consequences. Welcome to the real world. I don't want to see people suffering any more than the next person, but seriously, all that waffle above doesn't negate the fact people signed a contract to pay a series of payments whereby the house will be repossessed in the event of default.

    What part of that agreement do you have a problem with? People's lemming like behaviour as well as cheap credit inflated the market. It is the banks responsibility to maximise profit for it's shareholders, they have freedom to set their interest rates how they wish within constraints. The lemmings inflated the market.


  • #70
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    There is a hell of alot of posters on here who want people's property to devalue more just so they can afford to buy. What does that say?

    There are also some posters who want to see the current uncertainty ended.

    I neither a seller nor a buyer want to be,but I sure as hell recognize that the entire country is caught like a rabbit in the glare of the Property Sectors headlights.

    The resultant paralysis is directly effecting the ability of thousands to simply get on with the non-property owning aspects of their lives.

    What does that say ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #71
    JRant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,295 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Bullseye1 wrote: »

    There is a hell of alot of posters on here who want people's property to devalue more just so they can afford to buy. What does that say?

    That they want to be able to afford their own home maybe?
    I'd be very weary of going down the route of blaming prospective buyers on the repossessions of current homeowners. It could led to awful relations between any new owners and existing neighbours. There's enough people to blame for the current situation without appropriating blame to people who have had no hand in it.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    What it's saying is that no matter what Noonan says we will have the biggest right down of debt ever. It's going to be bloodshed and I can see one of the major banks collapsing in the not too distant future.


  • #73
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,744 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    El_Dangeroso wrote: »
    As a potential first time buyer that's not in negative equity I approve this message.
    I hate this term. Houses should be homes, not investments.


  • #74
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Grayson wrote: »
    I kinda agree with shared responsibility.

    Say I live in a country where there's lax gun laws and this is because the gun industry is in bed with the government. It lobbies the government and spends loads on election campaigns. Because of this it's easy to get a gun.
    Now suppose I go out and get a gun. And I shoot someone. Am I any less responsible for my actions? Did anyone (scuse the pun) put a gun to my head and make me kill someone?
    No. I bear full responsibility for my actions. And it's wrong for me to say it's someone else's fault.
    Yes, the government shares responsibility. As do the gun manufacturers and the guy who sold it to me. And they should pay for their actions.
    But that doesn't lessen my responsibility or my punishment.

    Sure the government created an environment where this kind of spending could happen.But no-one made anyone take out a huge mortgage for a property that really wasn't worth it.
    Is a homeowner getting a mortgage, the moral equivalent to someone buying a gun and killing someone? What a facially ridiculous analogy.

    The banks and the government are responsible not just for the size of homeowners debts, by encouraging the property bubble, they are responsible for their inability to pay those debts, because the banks and government caused the economic crisis, that has put people out of jobs, and made them unable to meet payments (and are also, along with the EU, responsible for failing to put in place recovery policies, that would give them jobs to meet those repayments once again).

    Were the homeowners supposed to be prescient, and see the crisis coming; the worst crisis in 3/4 of a century? (which practically all economists, bar a small minority, did not see coming?)


    If I am responsible for inflating the price of an asset, and destabilizing the economy through issuing risky loans based on those inflated assets, is that all ok and the fault of the person I'm giving the loans to, all because they 'signed the contract'? Bullshít.


  • #75
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    What it's saying is that no matter what Noonan says we will have the biggest right down of debt ever. It's going to be bloodshed and I can see one of the major banks collapsing in the not too distant future.

    I would tend to agree that some of the fallout is going to impact upon one or more of the Financial Instituitions.

    That,in itself,might be no bad thing,as it then allows for the ailing institution to be accquired in the normal commercial manner,rather than the highly artifical State Supported situation up to this.

    However,in the clamour to call for the Bankers heads,we should also realize that these same dreadful institutions employ thousands of ordinary people also......who just pay their way too....what attitude do we adopt to those "Bankers".....?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #76
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    "Bankers" are not the tellers at the counter they are the directors who implement policy.


  • #77
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Is a homeowner getting a mortgage, the moral equivalent to someone buying a gun and killing someone? What a facially ridiculous analogy.

    The banks and the government are responsible not just for the size of homeowners debts, by encouraging the property bubble, they are responsible for their inability to pay those debts, because the banks and government caused the economic crisis, that has put people out of jobs, and made them unable to meet payments (and are also, along with the EU, responsible for failing to put in place recovery policies, that would give them jobs to meet those repayments once again).

    Were the homeowners supposed to be prescient, and see the crisis coming; the worst crisis in 3/4 of a century? (which practically all economists, bar a small minority, did not see coming?)


    If I am responsible for inflating the price of an asset, and destabilizing the economy through issuing risky loans based on those inflated assets, is that all ok and the fault of the person I'm giving the loans to, all because they 'signed the contract'? Bullshít.

    No it isn't bullsh1t. No one forced anyone to sign the contract. Where in the contract did it ever say "this agreement becomes null and void if the property bubble crashes or you lose your job". It is absolutely ridiculous to think the contract becomes void because a recession hit. If that's what you want then request that to be out in the contract and quit being a mindless lemming.

    Hopefully people will learn the consequences from their actions if any good can come from this mess.

    If I had a contract to pay you back the 500k you lent me would you write it off because I lost my job? It's not my fault, I can't predict the future.


  • #78
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Three Seasons wrote: »
    No one was forced to sign the contract. If you behave like a lemming you suffer the consequences. Welcome to the real world. I don't want to see people suffering any more than the next person, but seriously, all that waffle above doesn't negate the fact people signed a contract to pay a series of payments whereby the house will be repossessed in the event of default.

    What part of that agreement do you have a problem with? People's lemming like behaviour as well as cheap credit inflated the market. It is the banks responsibility to maximise profit for it's shareholders, they have freedom to set their interest rates how they wish within constraints. The lemmings inflated the market.
    Ah I see, you say the banks share no responsibility whatsoever. Nevermind that many banks engaged in fraud and breached regulations to make many of these loans, it is the fault of all the 'lemmings', i.e. homeowners i.e. society, for taking out those loans.

    That's really weak blame-shifting; that's like putting the entire blame for the economic crisis onto society as a whole, "shure we all went mad", and totally absolving the banks of any responsibility. Nonsense.


  • #79
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    cournioni wrote: »
    I hate this term. Houses should be homes, not investments.

    I think to most home owners it is their home. To the banks it's an investment.


  • #80
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Three Seasons wrote: »
    Hopefully people will learn the consequences from their actions if any good can come from this mess.
    Yes just not the banks, right? Their actions have no consequence, it's only the 'lemmings' fault.


  • #81
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    cournioni wrote: »
    I hate this term. Houses should be homes, not investments.

    A house is bricks,mortar and money.

    An unoccupied house is just a walled and roofed space.

    At some point it became de rigour to describe new empty houses as being homes,without a single human being ever having lived in them.

    It could be argued that this subtle descriptive shift,in marketing terms,marked the beginning of the rapid slide into the fiscal anarchy we enjoy today.

    We managed to blur the distinction between Bricks n Mortar and Blood n Guts,with unsurprising results.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Yes just not the banks, right? Their actions have no consequence, it's only the 'lemmings' fault.

    Did I ever say the bank didn't make mistakes?

    Nevertheless you have no one else to blame but yourself if you sign a contract to pay back 500k and can't afford it. You took a gamble a lost. Deal with the consequences like an adult.


  • #83
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Three Seasons wrote: »
    Did I ever say the bank didn't make mistakes?

    Nevertheless you have no one else to blame but yourself if you sign a contract to pay back 500k and can't afford it. You took a gamble a lost. Deal with the consequences like an adult.

    Should they also take a hit?


  • #84
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Three Seasons wrote: »
    Did I ever say the bank didn't make mistakes?

    Nevertheless you have no one else to blame but yourself if you sign a contract to pay back 500k and can't afford it. You took a gamble a lost. Deal with the consequences like an adult.
    You've all but absolved them of their mistakes, such as stuff like:
    Three Seasons wrote:
    It is the banks responsibility to maximise profit for it's shareholders, they have freedom to set their interest rates how they wish within constraints. The lemmings inflated the market.
    If you agree they have made mistakes, and that they are responsible for those mistakes, then putting the cost of their mistakes entirely onto homeowners, is an unconscionable act.

    If the banks made mistakes and are responsible for them, they have to bear the cost of those mistakes, not lump it entirely onto the indebted homeowners, whose predicament the banks are largely responsible for creating.


  • #85
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    Bullseye1 wrote: »

    Should they also take a hit?

    Their losses shouldn't be socialised to the tax payer if that's what your getting at.

    But that's not really relevant to the independent contract you have with the bank.


  • #86
    JRant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,295 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Boombastic wrote: »

    So for example would it be extending a 25/30 year mortgage to a fifty year mortgage? If the person took out the mortgage when they were 30, they'd be 80 again it was paid off. What if the person never gets job at the same wages again?

    A person would need to factor in the rise in the mortgage in relation to their wages. Then you have a situation where it may be too expensive for people to take the higher paid job, kind of like the trap of costing more to go to work than stay on the dole. The rise in their mortgage payment would cancel out the increase in wages.


    ETA: The only people that wouldn't benefit would be those that saved and planned accordingly.


    The whole of the EU had easy access to the same credit, not just the Irish, yet we seemed to have went mad

    My honest answer is I just don't know.

    Your right though, only the gamblers seem to be benefiting at the moment.

    I don't accept "we" went mad at all. Lots of people I know saw there was no value in the market and rented instead. Now their in early 30's looking to plant roots, so to speak, but are effectively froozen out of the current market.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • #87
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Hopefully those who absolve the banks of all responsibility never have the pleasure of having a mortgage. I'd hate to see them become a lemming.


  • #88
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    "Bankers" are not the tellers at the counter they are the directors who implement policy.

    Policies which were substantially altered in a headlong rush by the banking sector to satisfy an insatiable demand for property related funding.

    From an era,(my own) when securing a mortgage entailed a significant amount of financial committment well in advance of application,to a situation whereby anybody with a pulse was deemed creditworthy was a remarkable short space of time.

    The overiding driver was Demand....the sheer scale of demand,pent-up or otherwise manipulated caught much of the Banking Sector totally off guard.

    However the flames had been well and truly stoked by Margaret Thatcher in the UK,with plenty of accounts about the nirvana which Property Ownership represented,so what was good for the Brits was surely good for us ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #89
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Three Seasons wrote: »
    Their losses shouldn't be socialised to the tax payer if that's what your getting at.

    But that's not really relevant to the independent contract you have with the bank.

    Their loses have already been socialised to the tax payer or have you forgotten about that 60 billion. They should never have been privatised. You wouldn't even be defending them only FF privatised those pirates.

    These are the same bankers who encouraged people to invest in off shore accounts and defraud revenue.


  • #90
    Mongfinder General
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭Mongfinder General


    Sure why not just repossess all the housing stock? Interest Rates of 8 or 9% should do it. Then we we'll have state owned banks with worthless state owned houses on state owned balance sheets. Fcuk it, we can have socialist republic while we're at it.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You've all but absolved them of their mistakes, such as stuff like:

    If you agree they have made mistakes, and that they are responsible for those mistakes, then putting the cost of their mistakes entirely onto homeowners, is an unconscionable act.

    If the banks made mistakes and are responsible for them, they have to bear the cost of those mistakes, not lump it entirely onto the indebted homeowners, whose predicament the banks are largely responsible for creating.

    They should be allowed to fail as a result of their mistakes.

    Contracts already signed remain valid regardless of bad business decisions they made.

    Imagine you are the owner of a business and you are owed 100k by your debtors. Now imagine you make a bad business decision and invest in an ineffective marketing strategy resulting in losses.

    Do you think this gives the debtors the right to say, sorry, not going to pay you back because you made mistakes. Those mistakes are irrelevant to the contract between you and your debtors. They have to pay you your money regardless.


Advertisement
Advertisement