Loading...
The Rural Voice, 1992-07, Page 18High -Volume Belt Conveying/Feeding • Convey and feed with one machine. • Single -motor drive. • 16 -inch concave beh conveys up to 90 cu. h. (or 1,600 pounds) of teed per minute. (Forages @ 370 FPM). • 12 -inch beh: 56 cu. ft. or 1,000 pounds per minute (forages @ 400 FPM). • Can add teed to conveyor section at several locations with open-end hoppers. Ask about the full line of Patz Conveyors and Feeders. Progressive Farming R. R. 2, Wellesley 656-2709 Rannoch 229-6700 Patz SAFE/' cL1n.con. MEM HAY FEEDERS Round Bale Hay Feeder 7' or 8' diameter available. Available in square tubing — 1 ", 1 1/4" or 1 1/2" Collapsible Hay Saver • fits inside most round hay feeders • fodder stays inside feeder instead of being trampled underfoot A division of Steve's Welding R. R. 1, Newton, Ont. NOK 1R0 519-595-8737 14 THE RURAL VOICE Agrilaw Business is business —family or no! tractor. Son uses the funds to pur- chase the tractor. The loan is not evi- denced in writing, nor is any security taken by the father as against the tractor in support of the loan. There- after, the son obtains an operating line of credit for the farm operation from the bank, which is secured by a General Security Agreement. The bank registers the General Security Agreement, pursuant to the appropriate registration system. Ultimately, son runs into financial difficulties and is unable to meet his payments to the bank. The bank im- mediately takes realization proceed- ings on all of son's assets. Father, who lent son the money for the trac- tor, prior to the bank making its loan, claims that he is entitled to payment of his funds (used to purchase the tractor) before the bank is entitled to realize on any of the assets in satis- faction of its claim against the son. As a result of the father not having evidenced the loan in writing, he now has an uphill battle to demonstrate to a court that, in fact, funds were loaned. Even if father is successful in convincing a court that funds were lent, (which in fact they were), as a result of the bank taking and register- ing security, and the farmer -lender not having done so, the bank's claim takes priority over that of the father, despite the fact that the father lent money prior to the advancement of the bank's loan. The end result is that the bank is able to realize on all of the son's assets including the trac- tor and the father only recovers his debt in the event that there are remaining assets after the bank's claim has been fully paid. Had the father taken security in support of his loan, perhaps a chattel mortgage, and registered same under the appropriate registration system, then, as the bank took its security and registered same after registration of the father, the father would have first claim, in priority to the bank, to the tractor or its proceeds on sale. As a result of having first claim to that equipment, the father could then either sell the tractor and receive the proceeds of sale as repayment of his loan. Alternately, he may wish to not The farmer next door has just been advised by his accountant that he has a cash-flow problem and that he needs to borrow money. He immediately goes to the bank. When all is said and done, the farmer ob- tains a loan from the bank. As a precondition for the loan, the farmer had to sign various bank documents which create a security interest in favour of the bank in his assets. As well as going to the bank, the farmer also approaches you for a loan. You lend him money. However, unlike the bank, you do not take security in support of the loan; in fact, you do not even evidence the loan in writing. Why not? There is no good reason. There is no good reason why a farmer, lending money to friends or family, should not protect his or her interest in the same manner as would a bank. Traditionally, when lending to family or friends, farmers have been reluctant to even evidence the making of the loan in writing, let alone taking some form of security from the borrower. The reasons for this reluc- tance are typically that the lender believes that family members can be trusted and relied upon to pay back their debts or that it would be unseemly to take security from a friend in need. However, by not taking some form of security from the borrower or, at the very least, evidencing the making of the loan in writing, the farmer -lender is not only jeopardizing his own investment, but may also, unwittingly, be doing a disservice to the borrower. For example, farmer and son de- cide that it is time for son to start his own farm operation. In order to as- sist son in doing so, farmer provides son with a loan for the purchase of a