In class we talked about the story in this case as being: Poor Demotsis, without funds in Greece, gets Batsakis to agree to loan $25 in local currency in exchange for $2000 payable in the US. However, the quote on the bottom of the right hand column on pg. 36 says "Plantiff...was then and there in the Kingdom of Greece in straitened financial circumstances...[and] agreed to lend to defendant the sum of 500K drachmae..." Is this a typo in the case, or is the actual circumstance that the plantiff, despite financial difficulty, lent money to the defendant, who may or may not have been in desperate financial condition? And if this is the case, does that change how we view some of the policy considerations?

-- Anonymous, September 20, 1998

Answers

Re: error

do we know why the court emphasized "plaintiff" in its report on the facts?

-- Anonymous, September 20, 1998

Hey, Christian.

My interpretation, after a long period of staring at the wall stupified, was that the plaintiff, Batsakis, was short of money and though he wanted to give some money to the more-desperate Demotsis, he would only do so if he thought Demotsis would be able to also help him out, when she got the chance, by getting him access to much-needed $5000 of American money while he's desperate in Greece. So this was essentially a favor of one desperate person to a more desperate person, in exchange for a promise that, eventually, Demotsis will return the favor (with a little interest). If people in Batsakis's position, who are already not so well off themselves, cannot rely on a contract to be repaid for special loans like this one, then they will be less disposed to make such loans.

Or maybe not? See you in class, Eric

-- Anonymous, September 20, 1998

I think that the emphasis added is meant to indicate that the testimony given is indeed the plaintiff's, Mr. George Batsakis. In fact, it is HIS rendition of what Ms. Eugenia Demotsis told him. They perhaps wanted to avoid confusion about who was telling this story, and thus added the emphasis so we wouldn't think it was Ms. Demotsis testifying to this. It says "Plaintiff avers that on or about April 2 1942 SHE owned money and property..." In this case, the she refers to defendant, Ms. Demotsis, not the plaintiff (who is a 'he'). Does this make sense?

Luke

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1998

that makes sense...

In re-reading the passage, you appear to be correct. Kind of a confusing way of telling the story.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1998

That makes more sense to me too. I missed that personal pronoun. - Eric

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1998

Sorry to keep butting in. I just realized that I'm still not sure why "plaintiff" would be italicized. Didn't they both agree on these basic facts? Maybe plaintiff is italicized to emphasize the circumstances under which plaintiff gave the money - he did it thinking Demotsis was desperate and therefore estimated that $25 was worth considerably more to her, under the circumstances, than it ordinarily would be and that, furthermore, she would be able to repay it. In Batsakis's eye, and perhaps, by implication of the italics, the court's eye, he was not trying to take advantage of desperate circumstance but considered himself to be doing a considerable favor.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1998