summary judgmentprescriptionloan agreementdemand loanmaturity date
Tags
summary judgmentprescriptionbankingloan agreement
legislation
Statutes Cited
N
o
n
e
–
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
t
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
d
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
c
l
a
u
s
e
s
o
n
l
y
;
n
o
s
t
a
t
u
t
e
o
r
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
w
a
s
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
.
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"When does prescription commence to run given multiple possible scenarios for when debt became due?","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Multiple demand dates and maturity date create uncertainty"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiff bank claimed $47,808 from the defendant arising from a personal loan of $46,000 advanced in August 2012. The defendant raised prescription as a defence, creating uncertainty about when the debt became due and prescription began to run.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases