Ancient law really require the father to return the debt to the son

Father's debt" may not be "son to return"

Wu Hook

"Father's debt, son to return" is a familiar phrase, in many people's impression, "...the father's debt, son to return" is a general rule in the ancient debt relationship, which is regarded as a natural right by the Chinese people. In many people's minds, the phrase "father's debt, son's debt" is a general rule in ancient debt relations, which is regarded as a matter of course by the Chinese. Some people therefore criticized the traditional legal culture disregard for the independence of children, treating them as the father's subordinate; but there are also people from another point of view, that "the son to pay the father's debt" reflects the traditional virtues of the Chinese people to speak of honesty and integrity.

But those who argue this way may not realize that there is no such thing as a "father's debt returned by the son" in the traditional Chinese legal system. The legislation of the Song Dynasty also rejected the validity of "father's debt, son's return". It was not until the Ming and Qing dynasties that the law recognized the "return of debts from father to son". Of course, the history of "father and son repayment" as a folk customary law, is quite early. From the excavation of the Tang Dynasty loan contract instruments, you can see "if the body of the thing is gone, a leaning wife and children and after the collection of the guarantor to pay" and other words. Means: if the borrower died, the debt will be his wife and children, heirs or guarantors responsible for repayment. But this "son to pay the father's debt" contract terms, should only be private agreement, because the Tang Dynasty law, and no "son to pay the father's debt" provisions, the law only requires the debtor to "the family capital exhaustion, the service body discount reward "

The earliest known agreement was with the father of the child, the father of the child.

The earliest thing that made me question the legal effect of "father's debt, son's debt" in traditional society was the epitaph of the Song dynasty's Qian Guanfu, which contains a detail that reads: "At the beginning, Mr. Chaojiao (Qian Guanfu's father, Qian Danyan) tried to claim a debt of up to three million dollars. In his old age, the cost of property consumption, no repayment, worried about the color. Jun pilfered to the money home, to his name on the coupon, don't show that must be paid, the court is satisfied." This account says that, at the end of the Northern Song Dynasty and the beginning of the Southern Song Dynasty, there was a man named Qian Yan Suzhou to "Zi Qianjia" (usurious businessmen) borrowed 3,000 kanji, in his later years, because of the family's excessive expenses, can not pay the debt, very worried. His son, Qian Guanfu learned, quietly found the "Zi Qianjia", the debtor of the debt contract to his name, and then went home to tell his father, the debt by him to pay. Qian Yan then settled down.

When I read this story, I thought to myself: If there was a legal obligation in the Song Dynasty to pay debts to the son, Qian Guanfu would not have had to renegotiate the contract with his son's family because it would have been redundant. On the other hand, if the son did not pay the father's debt legal responsibility, re-contracting is a necessary procedure.