In order to constitute a loan, there must be a contract whereby one party transfers to the other a sum of money. See: U.S. v. Neifert White, 247 F.Supp. 878.
A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another of a sum of money. See: Kirkland v. Bailes, 155 S.E. 2d 701. (Yet the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says in Modern Money Mechanics that banks make loans by promising to lend.) (However a promise to lend cannot be enforced. In order to constitute a loan, money must be loaned, but banks make loans by promising to lend, and promises to lend cannot be enforced.) 5 MRSA.
The thing given or taken in exchange must be specific and so distinguishable from things of like kind as to be clearly known and identifiable. See: Preston v. Keene, 14 Pet 133.
The extension of credit is not the giving of value. See: UCC 3-303:0; Atkinson v. Englewood State Bank, 141 Colo 436.
A loan is the creation of debt by the lenders agreement to pay MONEY TO THE DEBTOR. See: Maine Consumer Credit Code 9-A, Sec. 1.301 (23)(a)(1).
Banks extend credit, not money. See: National Bank v. Atkinson, 55 Fed. Rep. 571.
Fair and reasonable value means the best price to be at once in money -- cash being the antonym of credit-- cash value importing value in money. See: State v. Woodward, 93 SO 826, 208 Ala 31.
Okay, I'll play.
Exactly what part of that did NOT happen here?
Not the crime of theft... the using of credit. Remember that signed document thingy you had to put your crayon "X" on before they handed you the shiny plastic?
That was a contract between you and the lender stating, in part, that for due consideration of X dollars in advanced monies you, the debtor, would willingly and promptly (according to the stipulated terms) return that money to said lender.
The extention of credit is not, in and of itself, value. However, once that credit is turned via use of the card into value by use of the buying power inherent in that transaction (the give and get necessary for a contract with the seller of goods), THEN the DEBT has value equal to the amount of that transaction and any agreed upon charges for that value amount.
That is why it is illegal to charge interest on unused credit balance.. because the unused portion of that balance has no value.
Let me save you some time here. My degree was in International Finance. I have taken, literally, a year of theory on this topic.
If you like, I can suggest some excellent text books or, better, a fine college atmosphere in which you will find the knowledge which you have displayed so eloquently is still beyond your grasp.
Just to make it clear... debt is legally binding upon those whom have entered into the contract for said debt. This has been upheld in every level of court.
Your argument has no value. Get it, value?
