Does Lender's Right of Recover a Loan Depend on the Ability Prove the Payment Terms ?
In Chapin v. Tampoorlos, 325 Ill. App. 219, 223, 59 N.E.2d 334, 335 (1945), the First District says:
"A loan of money has been defined as an advancement of money upon a contract or stipulation, express or implied, to repay it at some future day."
If, as the First District says, the stipulation to repay the money need not be express but may be implied, it would seem to follow that the lender need not prove specific and definite terms of repayment, contrary to defendant's argument in this appeal.
The lender merely has to prove that the advancement of money was a loan, for the stipulation of repayment was already implied in the word "loan." Doughty v. Sullivan, 661 A.2d 1112, 1123 (Me. 1995).
Similarly, in Swift & Co. v. Dollahan, 2 Ill. App. 2d 574, 588, 120 N.E.2d 249, 256 (1954), the Third District says: "The promise implied at common law to repay money loaned was limited to repayment of principal citation."
If, according to the Third District, the common law implies a promise to repay a loan, the lender's right of recovery apparently does not depend on the lender's ability to prove the terms of repayment.