Question VI: Whether it is lawful to lend wheat, or something else, with the pact that it be restored in the same measure, even if the price has risen at the time of restitution

I say first: if it is doubtful whether the thing will be worth more or less, one may lend wheat for that time, for instance the month of September, so that it be returned in the month of February. See Molina disp. 311. and Caspensis sect. 6.

Truly, if it be morally certain that the wheat, wine, etc. will be worth more at the time of payment, and the lender was not keeping wheat until that time, he cannot lend without usury wheat which is now worth less by condition, so that just so much be returned at the time when it will be worth more. So expressly D. Bonavent. in speculo animae, cap. 2. supra citato, quaest. 5. whom they follow commonly, in Caspensis sect. 6. The Holy Doctor infers the same of one who lends an old thing so as to receive a new one of greater price. The reason is, because gain is received from the loan without any foundation.

Hence you have what is to be thought: Whether it be licit for one who knows that coin is to be raised in value to give a loan, so that the coin be returned at part of the value at the time of restitution of the loan.

For it is answered negatively, with Rebellio part. 2. lib. 9. quaest. 6. num. 7. Azorio part. 3. lib. 5. cap. 7. quaestio 9. against Reginaldum Tom. 2. lib. 5. cap. 23. num. 345. Bonacinam de contract. disput. 3. quaest. 2. puncto 5. num. 17. and others cited by him, with whom Diana is pleased p. p. Tract. 8. resol. 25. who proposes the opposite title, which is the same thing: Whether, if he knows the money is to be diminished, he can bind to the present value.

The reason is, because he receives from the loan a gain which is forbidden.

But Caspensis observes sect. 5. that if in the contract of loan they do not agree that the same matter be returned, for instance gold; or the same quantity, for instance so many Ungari; the borrower cannot pretend anything besides the value.

But if it is agreed that the same matter be returned, for instance of gold, he cannot exact the increment.

But if it is agreed that the same coins be returned, even as to value, if they have increased, he says, one can bind the borrower to restore also the accretion, for instance those Ungari which would have grown of themselves with him: because the gain of the accretion ceases if he would have kept the money with himself, for instance those ungaros which would have grown of themselves with him: Therefore by reason of lucrum cessans he can bind the borrower; yet if they should decrease, the borrower will not be bound to restore the same value which it had at the time of the loan; but it suffices that he restore the same money in number, weight, and measure. And thus the agreement ought to be understood in every event.

Finally, he concludes badly with Diana, that if he knows the value of money is to be depressed, he can bind the borrower to restore the coin at the value current at the time of the contract. The reason is, because this gain does not come from the loan, but from an extrinsic cause; for thus also, according to D. Thom. quaest. 77. art. 3. ad 4. merchandise can be sold at a high price current, if you know the price is soon to be diminished.

But this comparison does not please; for in a loan the contract is made for the time of restitution, the value being changed, and accordingly for gain; nor is it excused by the fact that this happens from the extrinsic command of the Prince, for the law of the Prince is intrinsic to the coin, because it runs and has value insofar as it is coin only so far as is decreed by the Prince, and accordingly a loan is made for the time of the intrinsic accretion, which is usury, as S. Bonavent says: but a contract of sale is made only for the present; and therefore parity is denied.