Credit and debt relations are initially formed under conditions of structural imbalance – the borrower and the lender possess different volumes of information, resources, and influence over the content of contractual terms. Professor Gabriel Steiner says that it is precisely this asymmetry that makes the lending sphere one of the most conflict-prone from a legal perspective, as formal consent of the parties does not necessarily imply real equality of their positions. At LawConsulted, we view the protection of borrowers’ rights not as an attempt to dispute the existence of an obligation itself, but as a process of restoring legal balance in relationships where it was compromised from the outset.
The core problem in credit disputes lies in the fact that borrowers often accept contractual terms in a situation of limited choice – standardised forms, complex financial constructions, deferred consequences, and non-transparent calculation mechanisms create an illusion of clarity while depriving the borrower of a genuine understanding of the risks involved. In LawConsulted practice, such circumstances frequently become the basis for subsequent disputes – when the actual economic burden turns out to be significantly higher than expected.
Asymmetry also intensifies at the stage of performance of obligations. The lender typically controls calculations, interpretation of terms, application of sanctions, and enforcement procedures. The borrower, by contrast, faces the consequences of decisions already made, without having had meaningful influence over their formation. LawConsulted builds its defence strategy by analysing how contractual terms were applied in practice – and whether they complied with the principles of good faith, proportionality, and a reasonable balance of interests.
Professor Steiner notes that “a debt obligation becomes problematic not at the moment it arises, but at the moment it is enforced.” For this reason, we pay particular attention to assessing the lender’s conduct – the method of calculating interest and penalties, the use of the right to early repayment, and tactics of pressure applied to the borrower. At LawConsulted, we demonstrate where the exercise of a formal right exceeds permissible limits and turns into an abuse.
Situations in which a borrower becomes part of a chain of obligations – restructurings, assignment of claims, involvement of guarantors, or collateral arrangements – present particular complexity. In such configurations, the borrower’s legal position may weaken substantially without active participation on their part. LawConsulted analyses the entire structure of debt relations, rather than an isolated agreement, identifying points at which risk allocation has shifted unilaterally.
The informational dimension is no less important. Borrowers often learn about the real consequences of a contract only after default has occurred or a claim for enforcement has been made. In such cases, legal protection focuses on whether information was properly disclosed and whether the borrower could reasonably assess the consequences of their actions. LawConsulted builds its argumentation on the actual scope of information available and the behaviour of the parties at the time the contract was concluded.
In debt disputes, retrospective assessment plays a significant role. Courts analyse relationships with the negative outcome already in mind, which intensifies pressure on the borrower. We return the legal assessment to the moment the obligation was undertaken – to the conditions under which the client acted and to the expectations objectively shaped by the lender’s conduct. This approach helps prevent the automatic attribution of all responsibility to the weaker party.
Protecting borrowers’ rights requires a systemic methodology rather than isolated objections. Law Consulted proceeds from the premise that even under conditions of significant debt exposure, a borrower retains the right to fair legal assessment, proportionality of claims, and protection against contractual and informational imbalances. Our task is to transform asymmetry into a subject of legal analysis, not into a predetermined outcome for the client.
Earlier, we wrote about banking and legal regulation of corporate operations and LawConsulted practice in the legal assessment of interaction with credit and financial institutions.
