Quote from: takuma sato on Today at 02:53:26 PM

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 02:46:51 PM

Quote from: takuma sato on Today at 02:39:37 PM

Found an interesting article today coming from Spain, it says that someone contracted a debt with another private party, it was a simple two-guy debt setting without a legal agreement other than Whatsapp messages. "I need X amount of money, I will pay you back". The creditor accepted and so sent 0.58 BTC to this guy which eventually refused to pay back. What's interesting is that for the first time ever the judge said the debt plus interest must be paid back in Bitcoin, not the fiat currency (EUR in Spain). Due counterparty risk, he will have to pay more since by the time the agreement happened the price of Bitcoin was cheaper, specifically, 14.000€ at current rate, 5.900€ back then. It's one of those things, you may take advantage of the fluctuating price or you may have to pay more. At the end of the day this is positive for BTC since it is being considered as a viable way to settle debts between private parties by authorities, which always translates into better regulation and in general being looked like less of a dodgy guy when you liquidate it into a bank deposit.

Source: https://es.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/juzgado-en-espana-ordena-devolucion-de-prestamo-en-bitcoin-no-en-euros-2401286

not really a precedent

its much the same as
"this guy stole my lawnmower"
judge: "give him back his lawnmower"

not all compensations/debts/thefts/frauds or orders to honour loans/agreements/returns need to be honoured in fiat

but still. atleast it shows that spanish judges accept bitcoin as a item of value that needs to be returned as is in the same condition as it was taken(plus extra for inconvenience caused). rather than some judges just dismissing cases thinking its two kids fighting over monopoly money

Yeah but this is a monetary settlement with an agreed interest rate, a lawnmower being stolen would return you the lawnmower plus a compensation for any damages caused and a fee for the theft. Here Bitcoin was respected as a valid way of money with his own market value and indeed not forced to liquidate the debt in fiat as if it was monopoley money in the eyes of the state, so overall is a positive. It is mentioned that at least in Spain this hasn't happened before.

return a petrol lawnmower + a full tank of petrol would be the court order(extra petrol being the interest)..
rather than converting the loss as a euro amount of how much the lawnmower was worth at the time of the swap

many court cases have seen the scammer/thief have to give back exactly what was taken.
its only in things like bankruptcy/tax evasion where most assets are converted to a fiat value and needed to be repaid in fiat. or where the thief that took an item, sold the item, no longer has the item and unable to return the item. are they then made to compensate in fiat.
but if they still have the item or can buy back the item from where they sold it. then that item can be returned in as best complete condition or better than when they took it

on the flip side there have been cases that did not even make it into a court room becasue some judges in different countries in the past just dismissed the case as wasting the courts time by thinking the case was about some silly game that should be resolved amungst themselves and not worth the courts time arbitraging the disagreement(the judge didnt believe the claimed loss was of real value to meet the standard of minimum loss value to proceed in court)