[abfunders]

It means they settled because the lawyers worked it out to some Middle grounds and it was cheaper that way. It doesn't mean that the actual case law would have come out in favor of one side or the other. When you see a settlement, you cannot bring a proof to anything.

With a loan, I don't really care if you profit it or not. Your future receivables don't bother me, I hope you're profitable but I don't care. I just care about the principle and interest. A future receivable is not a fancy jargon term, it is an actual reality, as legalese as that sounds it has been accepted, that future fruit that you produce comes to me at a rate that we are predetermining now. I don't care the market value later. However, if there is no fruit then I obviously don't get it. I'm only getting the next 500 tons of grapes at this price. If there's 500 tons of grapes.

In legal discussion, you always must keep definitions consistent so that you don't confuse what you thought should be the truth with what actually ends up being the truth.

[SamuelH]

It means they settled because the lawyers worked it out to some Middle grounds and it was cheaper that way. It doesn't mean that the actual case law would have come out in favor of one side or the other. When you see a settlement, you cannot bring a proof to anything.

With a loan, I don't really care if you profit it or not. Your future receivables don't bother me, I hope you're profitable but I don't care. I just care about the principle and interest. A future receivable is not a fancy jargon term, it is an actual reality, as legalese as that sounds it has been accepted, that future fruit that you produce comes to me at a rate that we are predetermining now. I don't care the market value later. However, if there is no fruit then I obviously don't get it. I'm only getting the next 500 tons of grapes at this price. If there's 500 tons of grapes.

In legal discussion, you always must keep definitions consistent so that you don't confuse what you thought should be the truth with what actually ends up being the truth.

Okay if they settled, it could also/possibly mean the merchant would have been held fully responsible so either way the merchant would have possibly had to pay on this debt whether he settled or not. If you don't care if the loan is going to bring profits, then writing the loan would be risky which would create more of the possibility of the person to default. Also read what I wrote "Saying it's not a loan doesn't create less penalties for non-repayment it's just word jargon for legalese" said nothing about future receivables being fancy jargon. You didn't answer the question: Would you loan someone some money if you didn't expect some type of future receivable? Yes, we are on the same page the MCA are based on receivables, but I am not ever going to agree that something that was given to me with expectation of me returning is not a loan just my personal opinion and you don't have to agree. Appreciate the banter.