[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

In other words, you think it's ok to insist on a contract with a loan for 50% interest.

I, and many others, disagree and think that's a heinous abuse despite the argument that both parties willingly entered into the agreement.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you think it's ok to insist on a contract with a loan for 50% interest

This is a total non sequitur. (And sure, if both participants are wealthy institutions and knowledgeable and uncoerced.)

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

It's not a non sequitur so much as it was a preparation to make the point I'm about to make.

There is no world in which two institutions with plenty of money, knowledge, and a lack of coercion are going to come to an agreement for a loan with 50% interest.

Theory vs practice. In theory what you're saying could happen, in practice it's only going to happen when one party has a severe imbalance against the other party (and you know this or you wouldn't have tried to head off that argument). Since contract law deals with practice, contract law disagrees with your assessment that it should be allowed.

Which goes back to the whole ownership thing.

Just because someone _can_ draw up a contract to muddy ownership to the point that the seller of a $30k+ USD vehicle can retain control and absolutely limit what the purchaser can do does not mean contract law should allow it.

And there's too much precedence for this sort of thing for you to have a leg to stand on (although I'm sure you'll try). Just because someone _can_ sign a non-compete with no expiration does not mean the law should allow it.

ad nauseum.

Arguing that because contracts today muddy ownership so you can't act as if the purchaser has certain rights is missing the point.

[throwway120385]

The word "willingly" does a TON of heavy lifting here given the circumstances of both parties.