English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article addresses the debate on fractional reserve banking and maturity mismatching. Block and Barnett (2011) as well as Evans (2014) have regarded the distinction between loans and deposits as unclear, especially regarding the contracts’ maturities. Davidson (2015) applying the a priori Title Transfer Theory cannot solve the continuum conundrum satisfactorily. We show how a free legal system by rule finding judges can settle the continuum problem and other problems relating to banking contracts in practice. The very same rule finding offers a new solution in the case of on-demand deposits with a withdrawal notice. The ethics of loan and deposit contracts can only by fully understood and sorted out by adhering to legal logic, proceedings, and general legal principles.

A Critique of the Pure Natural Law Approach to Loan Maturity Mismatching and Fractional Reserve Banking