I lent a friend money with nothing in writing: what the law says in five jurisdictions
France, Germany and Spain have an article about the loan itself; California and New York have no loan article at all, only a list of promises that need writing — and a loan repayable within a year is on neither list.
The problem
Five thousand went to a friend two years ago. There was no contract, only messages, and a promise to pay it back within the year. Now the friend says it was a gift, or says nothing at all. The lender wants to know whether an unwritten loan counts for anything, and what they can actually do about it.
What they agree on
Nowhere in this group does a loan between private individuals have to be in writing to exist. Germany's § 488 imposes no form requirement, and the German page is explicit that a private loan is valid even where nothing was written down. Spain's art. 1753 and France's art. 1902 state the borrower's obligation without any formality attached. California says the principle outright in nine words: "All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing." New York's General Obligations Law § 5-701 approaches it from the other side, listing the promises that are void without a signed writing — and a loan the borrower said he would repay within the year is not among them.
All five also agree that interest is not automatic. Germany's § 488(1) speaks of "einen geschuldeten Zins" — an interest that is owed, meaning one that was agreed. The Spanish page points to art. 1755 for the same result, and the French page notes that a loan between private individuals is in principle gratuitous absent a stipulation. A lender who never mentioned interest and now wants it is asking for something none of these provisions gives.
And all five converge on the point that actually decides these cases, which is not the law at all. The dispute is almost never about whether an unwritten loan is enforceable; it is about whether the transfer was a loan or a gift, and it is decided on bank references, messages, part payments and conduct. Every one of the underlying pages says so in its own language. What the money was, and what can be proved about it, is a question for a lawyer in the relevant country and for the evidence in hand.
Where they part company
| Jurisdiction | What its law does | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| France | None of the five members contains its own limitation period, and the periods are not the same. The French page names five years under art. 2224, running from the day the lender knew the facts allowing them to act, which for a term loan normally runs from the due date. The German position is bound up with § 488(3) as described above. The California page notes only that the period for an oral contract is shorter than for a written one under the Code of Civil Procedure. | It is the most common way one of these claims is lost, and it is invisible in every one of the five texts. A lender who has been asking politely for two years should be checking the clock in the relevant country before doing anything else. |
| Deutschland | Germany is the only member that supplies machinery for a loan with no repayment date. § 488(3): where no time is fixed, the debt falls due only when one party gives notice, and the notice period is three months. France's art. 1902 assumes a term was agreed ("au terme convenu") and its page notes that where none was, a judge may set a period. Spain's art. 1753 fixes no term and sends the reader to the general law of obligations. | A German lender cannot demand the money today, however long it has been outstanding: they must terminate and wait three months. The German page draws the further consequence for limitation — the § 195 period starts under § 199 at the end of the year in which the claim arose, and the claim only arises once the notice has run. The rule that looks like a delay is also what keeps the claim alive. |
| § 488(3) sentence 3 adds something no other member addresses: where no interest is owed, the borrower may repay without giving notice at all. | It is the only provision here that says anything about early repayment, and it points the opposite way from the notice rule — the interest-free borrower is free to clear the debt whenever they like, while the lender must wait out the three months. | |
| España | Spain says out loud what the others leave implicit: the borrower of money "adquiere su propiedad". The money becomes the borrower's, which is why art. 1753 obliges them to return "otro tanto de la misma especie y calidad" rather than the thing lent. France reaches the same destination through the duty to return the things lent "en même quantité et qualité". | The consequence is the one lenders to family discover late: because the money was the borrower's, losing it does not extinguish the debt. A failed investment, a business that went under, money spent badly — none of it is an answer to the claim. The two American members say nothing about this, because they are not about loans. |
| California | The two families are not answering the same question. France, Germany and Spain each have an article about the loan: what the borrower owes and when. California and New York have no article about loans between individuals at all. What they have is a rule about which promises need a writing, and a friendly loan is enforceable there by not appearing on the list. | It changes what to look up. A French, German or Spanish lender reads the obligation and works backwards to proof. A Californian or New York lender reads a list of exceptions, confirms their loan is not on it, and is then thrown entirely onto the general law of contract for the terms. |
| The two American lists are not the same list. California's § 1624 covers leases over a year and sales of real property; New York keeps land in a separate section, GOL § 5-703. California has a lending entry — commitments to lend or extend credit above $100,000, not primarily for personal, family or household purposes, made by someone in the business of lending — which by construction can never reach a loan between friends. New York has no lending entry, but has one California lacks: § 5-701(a)(10), compensation for negotiating a loan or the sale of real estate or of a business, expressly including a contract implied in fact or in law, and expressly excepting auctioneers, attorneys and licensed brokers. | Two neighbouring American jurisdictions, the same doctrine, and different contents. Assuming that a New York analysis carries to California, or the reverse, is how a claim gets lost on a technicality that had nothing to do with the merits. | |
| The consequence of falling on the list is worded differently. California says the listed contracts "are invalid" unless in writing; New York says they are "void". Both are satisfied by a note or memorandum "subscribed by the party to be charged" — one signature, from the person being held to it, and not necessarily a single formal document. | One signature is a much lower bar than a contract, and it is the borrower's signature that matters, not the lender's. The California page adds the point that invalidity is not erasure: part performance and estoppel operate around the section, which is precisely the argument that has to be built with a lawyer rather than read off the text. | |
| California alone legislates about the medium. § 1624(d) provides that an ephemeral electronic message — a text or instant message not designed to be retained — is insufficient to constitute a contract to convey real property absent a conforming written confirmation. Both American sections separately treat computer-produced text as a writing, and a symbol adopted with intent to authenticate as a signing, but only within the qualified financial contract exception. | It is the only provision in the group that engages directly with the format most of these loans were actually agreed in. It cuts only against land contracts, but it is a signal that the writing requirement and the messaging app are on a collision course that the European articles have not addressed at all. | |
| New York | The one-year rule in both American members is narrower than its reputation. Civil Code § 1624(a)(1) and GOL § 5-701(a)(1) catch an agreement that "by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof". The test is what the terms permitted, not what actually happened. New York adds a second limb: performance not to be completed before the end of a lifetime. | A loan promised back "within the year" was performable within a year, so it stays off both lists however long it has in fact run. An open-ended loan is likewise outside. The messages are enough — which is exactly the opposite of what most lenders assume the statute of frauds does to them. |
| Guarantees split the group cleanly. Both American members require a writing for a special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another — § 1624(a)(2), with the § 2794 exception, and § 5-701(a)(2). The three European members say nothing about guarantees at all. | The lender who was told "if he doesn't pay, I will" is in a different position on each side of the Atlantic. In California and New York that promise is on the list and needs a signature. In France, Germany and Spain the answer is not in the loan article and has to be found elsewhere in the code. |
The provision in each country
Each card links to the page that reproduces the official text and explains it in that country's own language.
France Code civil
Deutschland BGB
España Código Civil
California California Civil Code
- CIV § 1622 All contracts may be oral except those a statute specially requires to be in writing — the default runs the opposite way from what most people assume.
- CIV § 1624 The seven categories that are invalid without a note or memorandum subscribed by the party to be charged — including agreements not performable within a year, guarantees, land, and large professional lending commitments.
Where there is no answer in the code
A jurisdiction listed here is a finding, not a gap. Either its answer lives outside the corpus — special legislation, case law, municipal rules — or its law simply has no such rule.
-
Italia
No page written yet
Cod. civ. artt. 1813-1820
Not a gap in the law but a gap in the pages, and the only one of its kind in this comparison. The Italian mutuo is art. 1813 of the Codice Civile — "il contratto col quale una parte consegna all'altra una determinata quantita' di danaro o di altre cose fungibili, e l'altra si obbliga a restituire altrettante cose della stessa specie e qualita'" — and it is in the corpus these pages are built from, along with arts. 1814, 1816, 1817 and 1820. No page has been written for any of them, so listing Italy here would mean a link to nothing. It is worth writing.
-
United Kingdom
The courts answer it
A common-law debt
A simple loan in England and Wales is a common-law debt, with no statutory provision creating or governing it. The Acts this section carries — the Children Act 1989, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Housing Act 1988, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Partnership Act 1890 and TOLATA 1996 — contain nothing on lending, and England's own writing requirement for guarantees sits in the Statute of Frauds 1677, which is not among them.
That's the law in seven places. Now let's settle your problem.
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the law of one of these jurisdictions.
Or open a session directly and invite the other party.
This page compares provisions of several legal systems in general terms and links to the official text of each. It is not legal advice, it does not tell you which country's law governs your situation, and it takes no account of the circumstances of your case. For a live dispute, consult a qualified lawyer in the jurisdiction concerned.