This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
§§ 5, 6. The history of the transaction. We were asked by the defendant and his partner last September to lend them money on the security of the ship, and on condition of their sailing to Egypt, and either to Athens or to Rhodes on the return-voyage; and the interest was to be paid at either of these markets. We objected however to their sailing to any other port but that of Athens; and so they borrowed 3000 drachms and signed a bond on these terms. My partner's name indeed was written as the lender, but I had an interest in the loan, though my name did not appear. εἰς Ῥόδον ἢ είς Ἀθήνας An alternative of this kind seems to have been commonly allowed in contracts; so Or. 35 § 10 εἰς Μένδην ἢ Σκιώνην. Here their proposal εἰς Ῥόδον was distinctly declined, so that they could not plead ignorance of the lender's intentions. Boeckh (Publ. Ec. p. 56) calls it ‘an exceedingly oppressive regulation, that no Athenian or alien resident in Attica should lend money upon a vessel which did not return to Athens with a cargo of corn or other commodities,’ comparing this passage and Lacrit. § 51. He thinks, however, this involves such difficulties, that we must suppose the law is not fully known to us. On the loan called ἑτερόπλους see ibid. pp. 57—8. διομολογησάμενοι See Argum. l. 4.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.