This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

so that you may retain it under the name of a loan: let it be considered that the money was given by me and proceeded from me to you.
Should the same be determined if I give you money as if intending to donate it, and you accept it as if it were a loan? Neither a loan nor a donation can arise from this, since here there is an opposition between a loan and a donation, whereas in the preceding Thesis XXII there is a subordination of contracts.
Thus far regarding a loan, what it is by reason of itself, by reason of the things by which it is transacted, and by reason of the persons who perform it; now regarding the mode of transferring the owed thing, and the payment of that same debt. It is transferred either purely, or for a certain day, or under a condition; however, even if money has been given purely as a loan, it must not be restored to the creditor immediately upon his demanding it, lest the creditor show himself a harsh exactor and insulting, but rather moderate, and with efficacy benign, and with insistence humane.
But if the debtor, in whose favor a day is usually added, wishes to pay before the day, payment can be made even against the creditor's will.
Furthermore, a part of the debt can be paid against the creditor's will.
If the loaned thing is to be restored in the same genus and of the same goodness and quality—even if that has not been expressly stipulated—it is sufficiently clear that the tender of an inferior thing is invalid; but is it disputed whether a better one can be rendered? We shall defend the affirmative.