A loan with no due date: ten days from the demand

They are Articles 1329 and 1330 of the Civil Code of 2020, closing Chapter V of Title II of Book Five: the period to pay where none was agreed, and the lender’s liability for the quality of what was lent.

Borrowers and lenders under a loan governed by the Puerto Rico Civil Code, especially where the contract set no payment date or where what was lent turned out defective.

• For the ten days to run: that no time of payment was agreed and that a demand be made.Verified against the official source
• For liability in an onerous loan: that the damages were caused by the bad quality or defect of the goods lent.Verified against the official source
• For liability in a gratuitous loan: that the lender knew of the bad quality or defect and had not warned the borrower.Verified against the official source

• Proof of the demand and its date: Article 1329’s ten days run from there.
• The contract, to know whether the loan is onerous or gratuitous: how far the lender answers depends on that classification.
• If the loan was gratuitous, any record that the lender knew of the defect and did not warn of it.

1. 1

   Step 1: When the contract does not say when to pay

   Article 1329, a single line: where the time of payment has not been agreed, it must be made within the term of ten (10) days from the demand.

2. 2

   Step 2: The clock starts with the demand

   It does not start with the handover of the money or with signing: it starts when payment is demanded. With no demand, the article sets nothing running.

3. 3

   Step 3: What the article does not clarify about those ten days

   It does not say how the demand must be made or proved, and it does not say whether the ten days are calendar or business days. This guide fills in neither gap, but it does recommend keeping a record of the date.

4. 4

   Step 4: If what was lent was bad: onerous loan

   Article 1330, first half: in an onerous loan the lender answers for the damages caused by the bad quality or defect of the goods lent. The article attaches no knowledge condition: it answers.

5. 5

   Step 5: If what was lent was bad: gratuitous loan

   Second half: if the loan is gratuitous, the lender only answers where it knows of the bad quality or defect and has not warned the borrower of it. The liability of one who lends without charging is narrower, and depends on two things together: that they knew and that they did not warn.

6. 6

   Step 6: That is why onerous or gratuitous matters

   The same fault may or may not give rise to liability depending on how the loan is classified. When a loan is understood to be gratuitous is stated by another article, 1327, which has its own guide here.

7. 7

   Step 7: What the article does not measure

   Article 1330 does not define bad quality or defect, does not say how the lender’s knowledge is proved, and fixes no measure for the damages. All of that lies outside what this guide can assert.

Neither the demand nor the claim over the quality of what was lent goes through any agency: the Code names none. If a court claim is needed, the Court of First Instance decides under the Rules of Civil Procedure, which we did not read for this guide.

• Believing a loan with no date never falls due: it falls due ten days after the demand.
• Counting the ten days from when the money was handed over rather than from the demand.
• Demanding payment orally and then being unable to prove the date.
• Assuming the ten days are business days: the article does not say so.
• As the lender of an onerous loan, believing you answer only if you knew of the defect: there you answer for the damages caused.
• As the lender of a gratuitous loan, staying silent about a defect you know of.
• As the borrower of a gratuitous loan, expecting an answer for a defect the lender did not know of.
• Applying Article 1329 where the contract did set a time of payment.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico

  Poder Judicial

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov