Last summer, John Doe took out a bank loan in order to buy his house, worth millions, many millions of dreams and many millions in lei. He then puts a 15% down-payment on the house and today, based on the contractual agreement signed with the seller, he must pay the difference. However, his house worthy of millions isn’t worth millions anymore; some say it is worth half, but most unsure just how much. Yet,  John Doe is forced to pay the agreed price as stated in the contract: legal conventions have the power of the law between the agreed parts, isn’t that so? … Pacta sunt servanda (n. red.: the contract has to be respected).

“But it isn’t fair!” says John Doe. “Why should I pay this money for something that no one knows its true worth?”

“It’s true that your property isn’t worth this much anymore, it’s unfair to pay this much now, but it is fair because your contract obliges you to do so”, says the judge.

The grief caused by the above situation is followed by another one: the bank’s loan rate indexation. John Doe asks why, and the bank shows him the stipulation on page 28, part of the annex in the signed agreement. “What do you mean you didn’t read what you signed? What do you mean you couldn’t negotiate this stipulation? What do you mean it’s not fair?” Pacta sunt servanda, the bank also says.

“It’s fair that you didn’t read this stipulation carefully (and even if you had, there is also the risk of not understanding it), it’s unfair that it is now coming back against an inexperienced person such as yourself, but it is fair because the contract says so”, the judge says again.

Cruel contracts, cruel reality… Confronted with them, John Doe gives up. Not before losing his job based on a stipulation within the work contract, thus allowing the company to lay-off due to restructuring reasons. Again, Pacta Sunt Servanda. “It’s fair because you did your job by the book, it’s unfair to see yourself in the streets for reasons you do not understand, but it is fair because the contract says so”, the judge says so again.

“What to do now; live out of your wife’s pension fund? …Impossible…. Now more so than ever, as this pension has been reduced due to austerity measures taken by the government, through a special law.”
“The given right to a pension as calculated using a certain formula is a won right and it is completely unfair for it to be affected retroactively by an emergency ruling”, maintains his lawyer, or “Rules are made to be followed”, the government upholds.

John Doe’s anger further accentuates when he finds out that the money he pays as interest and tax to the state are directed by it, towards the bank, a borrower on the verge of bankruptcy, and following this the bank partially distributes them to its shareholders, based on past contractual agreements with them. Clear clauses, uninterpretable, unavoidable.

Fair, unfair, fair.

Fairness and thus law in itself is in a cruel crisis and in a passionate relationship with the ethics from which it derives. From the perspective of the judge, it is a love story. From the resigned point of view of John Doe, it is one of ferocious constraint…