Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica, Vol 14, No 2 (2018)

Abstract

Banking business practices have played a role in conditioning the creation and amendment of a series of contracts that specifically regulate business relationships between the bank and its clients. As a result of these relationships, it appears that in the legal practice from the terminological context some contracts with the same designation are perceived contrarily. Such case has to do with the loan contract. By analyzing the legal nature of this contract, it appears that civil law is more inclusive and the subject of the loan, apart from its money or surrogates, may also be certain items. On the other hand, the loan contract in its banking transactions has only money, respectively their surrogates. The differences that characterize this contract in certain jobs relate to the subject of the loan. On the other hand, in banking business practice, the term loans and loans to loan contracts are not clearly distinguishable with clarity. The compiled legislation, including the national one, regulates this issue with a legal framework for the relationship of obligations, yet again, perhaps this is not sufficient. Since we are dealing not only with contracts with substantive differences but also with the same contract that differentiates in the part of the contracted object, the banking law doctrine should address these elements so that the differences between them are clear by including in terms of terminology.