Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles - The Ludwig von Mises ...

136 Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cyclesdeposit, the objective or cause of the contract is radically different.In this case there is no exchange of present goods forfuture goods, nor does the depositor have the faintest desire tolose the immediate availability of the good deposited. Hencethe essential element in the irregular deposit contract is not, asin the loan contract, the transfer of availability, but rather thecustody and safekeeping of the tantundem, which constitutesthe legal cause or fundamental purpose motivating the depositorto enter into the contract. For this reason, there is no term,and the funds are deposited “on demand;” that is, they can bewithdrawn at any time. If the depositor were informed thatthe contract he plans to sign is a loan contract by which hewill grant a loan to the bank, and that therefore the moneywill no longer be available to him, he would certainly not gothrough with the contract as if it were a deposit, and he verywell might decide to keep his money. Thus, there isabsolutely no doubt that the cause or legal purpose of eachcontract is radically different from that of the other, and thatattempting to mix them is like trying to mix oil and water,given the essential difference between them.Theorists who attempt to equate the irregular deposit contractwith the loan contract fail to realize that their doctrinalstance ignores the true cause or purpose motivating the contractingparties to enter into a contract. And no matter howmany relatively empty statements they make about the equivalenceof the two contracts, they inevitably come up againstthe same legal wall: the radical, essential difference betweenthe legal cause behind each contract. Therefore, they can go nofurther than to state that each of the parties to the monetarybank-deposit contract thinks it is entering into a “different”contract. In other words, depositors hand over money as if makinga deposit, and bankers receive it as if it were a loan. Yet, whatkind of contract has two essentially distinct legal causes? Orto put it another way: How is it possible that both parties tothe same contract simultaneously intend to retain the availabilityof the same sum? 19 Indeed, depositors clearly turn19 Francisco Belda, following the example of Luis de Molina and Juan deLugo, believes he resolves this contradiction with the facile, superficial