The first makes a mistake which enables the situation to happen. The person who made the promise the other would incur no financial loss makes the actual mistakes which cause his own loss, regardless if he was mistaken on his external parties on which he base his promises (such as the doctor) or if those parties outright scammed him like for Patrick.
Patrick didn't make any kind of promise that wasn't perfectly valid. If you say "X because Y", you are promising Y, not X. Patrick said "X because Y", and Y was correct. However, X did not follow from Y. You can't promise that a conclusion follows from a premise.
And in this case, MP was better situated than PH to catch the mistake in reasoning. MP was specifically looking for indirect Pirate risk, PH was not.
X was never promised because Y. Otherwise by arguing that you
can repay the loan (X) because
you have a stable job (Y), you're not making to your bank the promise to repay the loan, you're strictly making the promise to the bank of having a stable job, not that you will repay the loan.
You agreed that in the case of the lendee stating he could repay a loan because he had a stable business or assets, the bank is not at common fault for considering his arguments sufficient.
The party does not accept that X is true because Y is true. The bank doesn't loan on the promise to
repay the loan (X) because the argument
he has a stable job (Y) inherently makes X (the actual promise) to be true. He just agrees that the Ys argued are sufficient to expect the other to honor his promise. When he states X because Y, he never strictly promised that he had a stable job to the bank. He's trying to provide reasons for the bank to believe him when he says he can repay the loan (X) which is what he actually promises. Both party cannot foresee the future events that would make the promise (X) an absolute truth that will be executed.
The
Ys can be factual, but are strictly provided as arguments to convince the promise
X can be honored. They are not provided as premises that can guarantee the conclusion (that the promise
X can be held true.)
Ys are there to convince that the promise
X can potentially be true.
Not that
Y being true automatically cause
X to be true. The parties are not attempting to establish logical truths which are impossible. Both party cannot foresee the future events that would make
the promise (X) an absolute truth that will be executed before the party promising it executes or sees it becoming a fact as he promised, rendering it a truth through the direct realization of that promise.
I will repay the loan(X) only if
I repay the loan (X).
The deposit pay X% and can be instantly withdrawn (X) only if
the deposit pay X% and can be instantly withdrawn (X). No arguments can prove those
Xs to be absolutely true other than
X becoming an accomplished fact. I don't see how you can assume that someone should not accept any
arguments Y until such arguments proves without a doubt the conclusion the
promise X will be executed because that is simply impossible. As such, no arguments can be contractual. By stating "because", he his arguing why he possibly can execute the promise. He cannot prove his promise will happen with any argument. Had he used the word "if", he would have made a conditional promise that he would honor his promise IF and only IF another event holds to be true.
By making a promise (X), you establish that it will be executed because it will be executed. Any arguments (Y)s are strictly there to point toward the fact you possibly can make (X) be a truth as you promised and for convincing the other party in that matter.