United States or Equatorial Guinea ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Luke, the correct reading of which is a matter of considerable difference of opinion. The more generally received reading of this verse, however, is that adopted by the Vulgate, 'mutuum date, nihil inde sperantes' 'lend hoping for nothing thereby. If this be the correct reading, the verse raises considerable difficulties of interpretation.
If the loan was for consumption, which was called mutuum, like corn, or oil, or wine, the borrower was required to return as much of the same kind and quality, whether the price of the commodity had risen or fallen. In a loan of money, under mutuum, the borrower was not required to pay interest. Interest was only due ex lege, or by agreement.
But if, instead of making use of his money for trading either by his own exertions or by those of his partner or agent, he chose to sell his money, he was not permitted to receive more for it than its just price which was, in fact, the repayment of the same amount. This was what happened in the case of a mutuum.
In no case, of course, could the party contributing the money stipulate that his principal should in all cases be returned, because that was a mutuum. The party contributing the labour might validly contract that he should be paid for his labour in any case, but, if this was so, the contract ceased to be a societas and became a locatio operarum, or ordinary contract of work for wages.
The contract of mutuum, however, was nothing else than a sale of fungibles, and therefore the just price in such a contract was the return of fungibles of the same value as those lent. If the particular fungible sold happened to be money, the estimation of the just price was a simple matter it was the return of an amount of money of equal value.
Word Of The Day