Noachide law

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Noachide law

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #605927

    Suppose a Noachide N borrows money from corporation C with earning capacity as ‘professional.’ Then bad actor, B, injures N disabling his ‘professional’ work status and rendering him temporarily capable of ‘menial labor’ only. N fails to pay C.

    Justice is not served to resolve injury by B to N.

    To what extent is N required to do ‘menial labor’ to pay C.

    Is N allowed to postpone payment to C while rehabilitating ‘professional’ work capacity?


    B has no obligation or responsibilities to C.

    N must honor his obligations to C. (N’s monetary rights from B does not affect his obligation to C.)

    B is obligated to compensate N for his loss.


    So N’s obligation to C remains unchanged by unforeseeable supervening actors. This is different from what I remember contracts class teaching.


    Where the supervening circumstances have so changed by the time of performance of a promise, that to compel the parties to perform the promise under conditions so altered, would require them o do something, which in fact they had never agreed to do. This is called the frustration of contract.

    The doctrine of frustration arises from the coming into existence of facts not within the contemplation of the parties, beyond the control of parties.

    The four instances where this doctrine is applied are:

    d)Loss of skill


    Glad I promised to uphold U.S. law not crude Noachide law on this issue..


    Torah Law, including the Noachide provisions, are perfect, just and refined. It is secular law, including U.S., that is crude and unjust. Your secular outlook clouds your mind from recognizing this fact.


    Since they are goyim, we apply their law. This is an area where everyone would hold the Dina Malchusa Dina applies to goyim.

    When the creditor sues the debtor, the debtor has a way of saying that the evil third party is really at fault and should pay the claim. It turns out that most legal system find a way to deal with the situation, since it is quite common. What is usual is that the evil third party may be insolvent (happens to evil tortfeasors a lot), though the debtor probably has a way to declare bankruptcy (which would leave the creditor going after the debtor’s debtors such as the evil third party).

    If the case involves goyim, let us hope they have Jewish lawyers, who on taking over all sides’ property (that is what lawyers do) will support our tasadakos.


    You seem to talking about 2 different situations. Someone who borrows money has an obligation to repay it even if his financial situation changes (I’m not sure how Jubilee laws effect Bnei Noach). Contract law has no bearing in a simple loan.

    You clearly created a straw man here.


    The Torah is perfect, just and refined. Its your interpretation that I called crude.


    farrocks is right. in both posts.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.