Article II. On the Triple Contract

919. • The triple contract is that by which someone contributing money makes an agreement with another partner that, whatever may happen, the entire sum be restored to him with a certain profit, yet a profit less than that which he probably could hope for; or it is a contract of society to which two other contracts are joined, namely of insurance of the capital and of insurance of the profit, or of sale of the hope of receiving a greater profit for a smaller profit certain and insured. It is thus instituted. I contract, for example, with Peter, by giving him a sum of money for trading. But since a hope of gaining 15 for 100 shines upon me, and I fear on the other side lest I lose the capital, I enter into a second contract with Peter, by paying him 5 for 100, if he is willing to take upon himself the insurance of the capital. This second contract having been entered into, only 10 for 100 now remain to me to be gained. But I would prefer a profit still less but certain, than a greater and uncertain one. Therefore I propose to my partner that he give me only 5 for 100, but restore it certainly, whatever may come upon us. Hence a triple contract is given, namely of society, of insurance of the capital, and of insurance of profit.

Q. Whether the triple contract is lawful?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion among Theologians.

I. OPINION denies it. The reason is 1. because thus the society is destroyed, of whose nature it is that the risks be common; therefore it is a true mutuum; therefore the title or foundation of receiving profit is lacking, at least above the rate of the law for a mutuum; 2. because, they say, the opposite doctrine was reproved by Sixtus V through the Bull Detestabilis, in the year 1586. - Collet. - Habert, etc.

II. OPINION commonly affirms it, provided the money is expended in trade. The reason is 1. because these individual contracts separately and with diverse persons are of themselves lawful and just; therefore also if they are made together and with the same person; 2. because there is nothing against equality: for compensation is given, and the risk is equivalently sustained by the one giving the money; 3. because Benedict XIV declares, in the work On the Diocesan Synod, Book 10, that the triple contract was not condemned by Sixtus V, nor did he intend to condemn it. And in the Encyclical Vix pervenit he says that he does not wish to condemn contracts concerning which there is dispute among Theologians. - See St. Lig. n. 908.