Talk:Contractum trinius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatics articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typical contractum trinius transaction[edit]

As I understand it, contractum trinius was not really like Islamic banking, because it relied on implications that labor was involved in both lender-supplier contracts

contractum trinius was the kind of contract that a consumer might use in order to finance the purchase of goods from a supplier

First, the consumer fixes a price and delivery schedule with the supplier

The consumer then offers to buy the goods from a lender “if he can find and procure them”

The lender contracts to buy the goods from the supplier, which are then supplied to the consumer, although they are and remain the property of the lender for some time. In the matter of raw materials to be manufactured or seeds to be grown and harvested, this might be several years.

The lender agrees that the consumer could pay for the goods after they had been delivered and had proved suitable, but within a 'reasonable time' specified in the lender-consumer purchase contract

The consumer could legally agree to pay the lender a few percent more for goods than lender actually paid to the supplier in order to cover the ´lender's 'expense' of finding and procuring the goods.

If in the time between the lender-supplier contract and the completion of the lender-consumer contract the market price of the goods had increased (for instance if value had been added by transport or processing) , ordinarily the consumer would have to pay the higher price. To limit this liability, the lender would have to contract a maximum price and thus avoid the sin of usury.

The contractum trinius thus provided, de-facto, a fixed a rate of financial return for the lender which was contractually enforceable, but appeared to be one simple contract for sale (lender-supplier) and two contracts for sale of goods and labor(borrower's future purchase from lender involves "expenses" and lender's eventual sale to borrower includes at least "inspection", and probably, in the case of manufacture or re-sale, also processing, repackaging and/or finding end-users).

Typical Promise to Purchase the goods[edit]

  • 1 The consumer undertakes to purchase certain goods from the purchaser immediately after the consumer has taken delivery of them on behalf of the purchaser and the consumer has also has verified the quantity and quality thereof is suitable according to the terms specified.
  • 2 The contract of sale of the said goods to the consumer shall be concluded by an exchange of letters as soon as the consumer has completed the necessary inspections and tests and without any undue delay.
  • 3 If, for any reason whatsoever, the consumer shall fail to conclude the Sale Contract after taking delivery of the said goods, then the purchaser shall have the right to repossess those goods from the consumers premises without recourse to law (but without obligation on its part to do so)., and the purchaser shall also have the right to take whatever steps may be deemed necessary to recover any difference between the cost of procurement and the price realized upon sale, including any other expenses incurred in relation to the acquisition and disposal of the said goodsTimpo (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Islamic banking[edit]

The final paragraph seems like a thinly veiled attack on Islamic banking without any consideration of pro/con arguments. I think it would be more neutral to simply provide a link to the full Islamic banking article, without the hostile implications. Let me know if you feel my edit is inappropriate. Maronz 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The contractum trinius isn't inherently a bad thing — or at least it's not made out to be in the article. So I'm not sure that saying that a form of it is used by some modern Islamic banks is (as far as I see it) an attack on those institutions. Could do with a source stating that it actually is being used by the banks, though. GeeJo (t)(c) • 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
On a quick search, it looks like my hunch was right. Google makes the link between Islamic banking and the contractum trinius seem tenuous at best, with only a handful mentioning both together - compared to the 800,000+ hits for "Islamic banking". However, since half the hits mentioning the contractum trinius at all make a comparison to Islamic banking, a brief mention is probably warranted. I've added a link to such an essay to back up the point that some do make the connection, though I've no major objection if it's removed. GeeJo (t)(c) • 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :) I described it as a possible attack because I think a Muslim would be reasonably offended when a practice called "Islamic" is being described as a clever trick to get around Islamic law. The way it is now is perfect though. Maronz 03:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So what if they're offended? Islamic banking *is* an attempt to get around Islamic law, just as the Contractum trinius is an attempt to get around biblical law. If a Muslim were offended, then surely they should petition their Islamic banks to offer genuine zero-interest loans, not complain about Wikipedia. -DrPizza 14:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed it less because it would offend than because the link seems somewhat tenuous based on googling. I'll admit I don't happen to have access to any literature, online or offline, about Islamic banking – so if anyone can provide an authoritative reference comparing the two feel free to include it. GeeJo (t)(c) • 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are certainly some Muslims who feel that common Islamic banking practices are illegitimate. The author of the comparison linked in the article is one of those authors; some feel that nothing short of true interest free loans are acceptable (that is, those loans whose terms admit no time preference/opportunity cost/etc. to money); others would extend that to profit-sharing schemes (for investments, at least); others argue that hire-purchase agreements (where the goods are rented for a period and paid off at the end of that period) are acceptable, as no penalty fees can be owed, but the goods can be repossessed on failure to pay. -DrPizza 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but bear in mind that this isn't an article on Islamic banking. That exists here. If you can find any certified experts positing a connection between the contractum trinius and modern banking practices, it belongs here. Otherwise, it probably doesn't. GeeJo (t)(c) • 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged name issue[edit]

An IP made 2 changes [1] over a year ago which I reverted where they basically claimed the correct title would be contractus trinius. My understanding of Latin grammar is close to zero (both contractum and contractus seem to be valid forms of the word, so it seems to be a grammar rather than spelling issue but I'm not sure where trinius comes from), so I have no idea if the IP is right. But even if they are, the whole article should be moved via WP:RM rather than just changing the word in the WP:LEDE. Further, commentary on what wikipedia should or shouldn't do is inappropriate for the article. If the external link uses an incorrect name, perhaps this can be noted via some method e.g. (sic), but often even this isn't needed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)