A question of morality?

[Sine Nomine]

In the entire story the property remained legally in name of Joe and only now with final payment by Al to Dave is the name about to be changed at Land Registry. All 'transfers' were by word of mouth. It went from Joe > Dave > Al by word of mouth. Only now is transfer going to be registered

Gave Dave 18 only+calculated inflation on it.
Otherwise tell him about forgetting share of money which was left by father and is in hands of Joe now.
If he wants to go to court,tell him i have memory problem,i would forget that i gave you house as payment for debt and good luck proving right on property without due paper work.

 

[H. Dawary]

No.

Your question did throw me off guard, and your assessment made me realise that I still don’t know a lot.

InshAllah I can learn more from you, perhaps you think I am flattering you, but I l’ve read many of your posts, and really I am learning a lot from you. I appreciate your wisdom.

No.

Your question did throw me off guard, and your assessment made me realise that I still don’t know a lot.

InshAllah I can learn more from you, perhaps you think I am flattering you, but I l’ve read many of your posts, and really I am learning a lot from you. I appreciate your wisdom.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I am learning a lot from you.

Thank you. Although I doubt you can learn much from me.

I appreciate your wisdom.

Wisdom is just a credit account of all the mistakes you have made in your life. By the time you get it, your too old. And the young won't listen because they still have a life ahead and are eager to make their mistakes as much as you were, when you were in their shoes. The cycle of life continues ..

Are you a Wrora or a Farsiwan? Not that it matters but just curiousity.

 

[H. Dawary]

Thank you. Although I doubt you can learn much from me.

Wisdom is just a credit account of all the mistakes you have made in your life. By the time you get it, your too old. And the young won't listen because they still have a life ahead and are eager to make their mistakes as much as you were, when you were in their shoes. The cycle of life continues ..

Are you a Wrora or a Farsiwan? Not that it matters but just curiousity.

I am both, a Farsiwan and a Pashtun.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Okay Joe, Dave and Al are brothers. Joe the eldest brother runs into massive financial as his business crashes and to stay afloat he borrows £18,000 from Dave. After few months the business begins to stabilize but the business is still not on robust posture and will take at least another year or two to recover and be in position to pay off the creditors, one of whom is his brother Dave.

But Joe begins to hear from people that Dave has been complaining about his £18k debt and this places him under even more pressure as his attention and time is invested in trying to stear the business back from bankruptcy. Because of the pressure he decides under massive compulsion to just hand over his family home to his brother Dave to pay off the debt. The property has some £50k equity with rest [£250,000 mortgage].

Dave now rents the vacant property for two years. After two years the youngest brother Al decides to buy the property from Dave. However Al does not have any money for deposit. So Al and Dave shake hands on a sale price that gaves a Dave net profit of about £30,000. Although the equity is £50k but £18k has to be offset against the debt he had against the the original owner, his elder brother Joe. £30,000 profit in two years is still a good return for him.

Happy with this Dave gives keys to Al who promptly moves into the property. However he does NOT give any deposit or cash payment. Al merely moves in and takes over the mortgage monthly payments. Everything is word of mouth. The property still legally remains in eldest brother Joe's name.

Two years later Dave applies pressure on Al to pay him some amount out of the £50k he owes him for the sale. Al does not have the money. As he comes under more pressure from Dave, Al has two choices. Either pay Dave part [£25k] or hand the keys back. In a sense Dave is in the same predicament as his elder brother Joe was who had been forced by circumstances to hand they keys to Dave.

So what does Al do? He does not have the money. He promptly goes to his father and asks for a bailout of £25k. The father agrees and transfers £30k [£5k extra] to his son Al to pay his debt off to his other son Dave.

Few years pass. Al then finally pays of the other £25 and the process for legal transfer begins. But by now the property price has appreciated by £120,000. This means Al has made a neat £120,000 profit.

So to recapa this.

• Joe gets into trouble.
• Joe gives his home under duress to Dave.
• Joe becomes homeless.
  
• Dave makes £30,000 profit when he sells the house to his other brother Al.
• Al proceeds to make a profit of £120,000 after his father bails him out.

QUESTION? Leaving the legalities out does Joe have right to feel done in?



Please give reasoned, thought out replies. If you can't don't bother. Thanks. There is part 2 to this story but I will move there after having got some replies.

@Desert Fox @Nilgiri and others with working cerebral cortex.

The problem is complicated due in part of outside(of Agreements) market forces. The market based appreciation and depreciation is not part of cash agreements, (inherent problem with cash based loans in over TIME transactions) as over time "appreciation" is basically paying the same debts(as debts are interest based). People do not understand that the appreciation in loans overtime is being paid by creating more money i.e. inflation.

That being said, Joe was beneficiary of an interest free loan from the time of it's inception while overtime the brothers would end up making the actual amount in x amount of time. Now beyond this, Joe has no say after he handed his yet to be paid property over to his brother... here there are too many variables such as potential for depreciation, non payment of property, maturity of loan so on and so forth... so Dave handing still unpaid property over Al was again what could be best described as hoping for the best!

So based on above Joe has no say in subsequent agreements. He cleared out from the eventual resolution of the said property and its valuation. Though, a side note ... since the loan was under Joe's name ... what if others hadn't kept their end of bargain who would have paid for subsequent payments on the property? But that does become irrelevant as everything seems to have reached it's conclusion.

That is exactly why Islamically money holds intrinsic value and is not dependent on time/value paradigm.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

The problem is complicated due in part of outside(of Agreements) market forces. The market based appreciation and depreciation is not part of cash agreements, (inherent problem with cash based loans in over TIME transactions) as over time appreciation is basically paying the same debts(as debts are interest based). People do not understand that the appreciation in loans overtime is being paid by creating more money i.e. inflation.

That being said, Joe was beneficiary of an interest free loan from the time of it's inception while overtime the brothers would end up making the actual amount in x amount of time. Now beyond this, Joe has no say after he handed his yet to be paid property over to his brother... here there are too many variables such as potential for depreciation, non payment of property, maturity of loan so on and so forth... so Dave handing still unpaid property over Al was again what could be best described as hoping for the best!

So based on above Joe has no say in subsequent agreements. He cleared out from the eventual resolution of the said property and its valuation. Though, a side note ... since the loan was under Joe's name ... what if others hadn't kept their end of bargain who would have paid for subsequent payments on the property? But that does become irrelevant as everything seems to have reached it's conclusion.

That is exactly why Islamically money holds intrinsic value and is not dependent on time/value paradigm.

Though Father's bailout throws a spanner in works but that does not affect the bilateral agreements between brothers. The other two brothers didn't or couldn't consult father for advice or largesse. So, eventhough rearview is 20/20 the things happened in a chronological order and one cannot have foreseen an outcome on any given circumstance.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Part 2.

The father is very sick now. Joe has been given Power of Attorney to fly to Pakistan to encash about £200,000 of savings that are in his fathers accounts in a large US bank branch in Islamabad. Joe is thinking.

• After I have cashed the money do I refuse to share it out three ways and instead deduct the £150,000 that both of his brothers profiteered from his misfortune.
• Or let it go and share it three ways.
  
• You know "two wrongs don't make a right".

All of the preceding things have no relevance to Father's death... that would be vindictiveness on Joe's part.

 

[StormBreaker]

Okay Joe, Dave and Al are brothers. Joe the eldest brother runs into massive financial as his business crashes and to stay afloat he borrows £18,000 from Dave. After few months the business begins to stabilize but the business is still not on robust posture and will take at least another year or two to recover and be in position to pay off the creditors, one of whom is his brother Dave.

But Joe begins to hear from people that Dave has been complaining about his £18k debt and this places him under even more pressure as his attention and time is invested in trying to stear the business back from bankruptcy. Because of the pressure he decides under massive compulsion to just hand over his family home to his brother Dave to pay off the debt. The property has some £50k equity with rest [£250,000 mortgage].

Dave now rents the vacant property for two years. After two years the youngest brother Al decides to buy the property from Dave. However Al does not have any money for deposit. So Al and Dave shake hands on a sale price that gaves a Dave net profit of about £30,000. Although the equity is £50k but £18k has to be offset against the debt he had against the the original owner, his elder brother Joe. £30,000 profit in two years is still a good return for him.

Happy with this Dave gives keys to Al who promptly moves into the property. However he does NOT give any deposit or cash payment. Al merely moves in and takes over the mortgage monthly payments. Everything is word of mouth. The property still legally remains in eldest brother Joe's name.

Two years later Dave applies pressure on Al to pay him some amount out of the £50k he owes him for the sale. Al does not have the money. As he comes under more pressure from Dave, Al has two choices. Either pay Dave part [£25k] or hand the keys back. In a sense Dave is in the same predicament as his elder brother Joe was who had been forced by circumstances to hand they keys to Dave.

So what does Al do? He does not have the money. He promptly goes to his father and asks for a bailout of £25k. The father agrees and transfers £30k [£5k extra] to his son Al to pay his debt off to his other son Dave.

Few years pass. Al then finally pays of the other £25 and the process for legal transfer begins. But by now the property price has appreciated by £120,000. This means Al has made a neat £120,000 profit.

So to recapa this.

• Joe gets into trouble.
• Joe gives his home under duress to Dave.
• Joe becomes homeless.
  
• Dave makes £30,000 profit when he sells the house to his other brother Al.
• Al proceeds to make a profit of £120,000 after his father bails him out.

QUESTION? Leaving the legalities out does Joe have right to feel done in?



Please give reasoned, thought out replies. If you can't don't bother. Thanks. There is part 2 to this story but I will move there after having got some replies.

@Desert Fox @Nilgiri and others with working cerebral cortex.

If you involve morality and social thinking, Joe doesn’t deserve any penny above then what he deserved from 50-debt as there was no prior agreement between joe and dave to share percentages upon selling the property in future as he handed over to dave stupidly and same goes for in.

Legally, you know the answer as to who deserves what

Part 2.

The father is very sick now. Joe has been given Power of Attorney to fly to Pakistan to encash about £200,000 of savings that are in his fathers accounts in a large US bank branch in Islamabad. Joe is thinking.

• After I have cashed the money do I refuse to share it out three ways and instead deduct the £150,000 that both of his brothers profiteered from his misfortune.
• Or let it go and share it three ways.
  
• You know "two wrongs don't make a right".

He must not deduct it as it’s his own mistake to let go off the home with no agreement of profit sharing.

Morally, i as dave would definitely hand out to my brother joe the profit of 30 that i incurred upon giving it to in and that too without even joe seeing that coming.

Joe is unlucky in this story and made grave mistakes !!!

IN should be merciful and try to be open hearted which is quite rare these days and collect all the profit he got as well as dave got and add to 200000, then divide it equally but again, that is from moral pov and that is quite impossible these days.

 

[Nefarious]

How much does Joe feel he's owed in all this right now? Does Joe feel he can sit down and work things out with Dave and Al. Dave might budge but Al got a sweet *** deal tho.

Joe might need to take a dip in that 200k to make things fair but depends how Dave and Al going to take it and whether Joe give a f.

Joes like good bro but poor move complicating it with the house involvement, Dave could defo have been more patient for the money. Tricky

 

[StormBreaker]

How much does Joe feel he's owed in all this right now? Does Joe feel he can sit down and work things out with Dave and Al. Dave might budge but Al got a sweet *** deal tho.

Joe might need to take a dip in that 200k to make things fair but depends how Dave and Al going to take it and whether Joe give a f.

Joes like good bro but poor move complicating it with the house involvement, Dave could defo have been more patient for the money. Tricky

Joe can definitely get save on table as dave didn’t earn fortune unlike in and joe. Having (200000+120000+30000+50000)/3 would earn in almost what he already had while dave gets much benefit and joe also gets