Christians suing Christians?

[Reservoir_Dog]

That may be the case for faceless, soulless corporations, where a well worded press release may assuage the ‘damage’ done to reputation, but in general terms, it is a risky strategy. A party may decide to breach a contract but in doing so it may incorrectly appear to be the cheaper option. The danger is that the damages awarded by the court may be calculated differently and be significantly greater than contemplated.

Modern commercial law isn’t built around forcing specific performance of contracts except in a few instances. A breaching party can figure out probable damages and there aren’t that many ways of calculation: the cost of cover, contract/market differential, lost profits, litigation costs balanced against defenses good or bad, counterclaims, and so on. FThat’s what accounts and attorneys are for. Each side knows this, and that’s why the vast percentage of commercial lawsuits never reach trial but are resolved through negotiated settlements.

In terms of the OP, this point is moot. The question is whether or not Christians can sue Christians and I contend that protection under the law against breach of a contract, or breach of an undertaking, has a long history. It has a long and supported history under Christianity because Oath giving was a serious matter and enforcable under Christian doctrine. The Op tells us that the person who borrowed the money has repaid a little of it. Therefore, Prima Facie, there was an undertaking to repay the loan. Failure to repay the full amount is failure to make good a promise and therefore to sue for recovery is not un-Christian.

The debtors in the OP would likely get a better deal if they were sued and appeared in small claims court, because the judge would probably give them payment terms. Sometimes deadbeats just need a touch of the whip to make them see common sense.