Hacker News Reader

Comment by moonpolysoft | Hacker News Reader

The store owner did not consent to the robbery, by definition. The bank consented to the contract and agreed that the home would be sufficient collateral for the loan.

View on HN

I thought of this. However, I think in the abstract that's not a material difference, because (at least in theory), the "punishment should fit the crime"...society agrees that X punishment is sufficient tradeoff for Y crime. Granted, the store owner doesn't individually make an agreement with the thief, but over time that societal agreement was made nevertheless.

Except for the fact that exercising a clause in a contract isn't a crime.

True, which I originally pointed out. Although I don't have my mortgage contract in front of me (and am open to correction here), my recollection is that a foreclosure is the defined consequence of me breaking the contract I agreed to - that is, to repay my debt at a rate of $X per month. "Exercising a clause" is a euphemism for "breach of contract" in that case, isn't it? If so, I think the analogy to crime is applicable. If not, then admittedly the analogy is indeed broken.

Crime isn't breach of contract. It's breaking the law. The law isn't a contract, it's a codified set of rules put forth by a legislative body. Contracts are subordinate to the law in America.

"Exercising a clause" is by definition NOT breaching the contract -- it IS part of the contract.

Home loans are based on collateral. You borrow money to take ownership of the collateral, and if you pay back the loan, you get to keep it. If you do NOT pay back the loan, the lending institution reclaims ownership of that collateral according to the contract.

This is mutual protection because things can change for the worse as well as for the better in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com