私人借錢 是否會受到法律起訴問題 請幫助

1. Since anyone can sue anyone for anything, it is possible.

The issue is the chance of success.

2. Yes and no. See below for your case analysis.

Unless the father is willing to give up any amount above $50,000 (so that he can sue in the Small Claims Tribunal), this case has to be filed in the District Court. Unlike Small Claims, the District Court will need some convincing evidences. For $200,000, deposit slips/wire transfer receipts are not enough to substantiate the existence of a loan. (Seriously - who will lend $200,000 without any protection? However, keep in mind that unless you can substantiate the money is a gift, getting $200,000 does not look good to you as well)

Here is the next problem - abortion. It is legal in the U.S., but not in Hong Kong. Since any agreements based on illegal conducts/acts are void, in Hong Kong law perspective, the forgiveness is void (while this is still legal in the U.S. law perspective). What make this more complicated is you have no proof (unless you have the phone recording).

So bottom line - it is a "he says, she says" situation.

My suggestion is ignore the whole issue unless the lawsuit has filed. If filed, unless you can get the case removed to a U.S. court, you will have to settle.

Interesting enough - at this time, the father would like the full amount back. So settlement will be futile now. However, once the court has involved, with the uncertainty of the court and legal fees, more people are willing to settle the case.

It is up to you if you want a lawyer or not. In your case, it will be mostly a waste of money.

2014-08-24 11:42:21 補充：
1. 6 years, based on the possibility that it may be a written contract.

However, here is what tricky - the original "agreement", if taken as true, has a grace period until you join the workforce. So even there may be 6 years in between, the statute of limitation has not yet expired.

2014-08-24 12:23:44 補充：
Continued at the Comment.

2014-08-24 12:27:00 補充：
2. Unless the email has specified terms, it can only used to support the existance of a loan.

Remember - a bank will not lend $200,000 over an email. So it is not difficult to understand what a court can explain.

2014-08-24 12:27:56 補充：
By the way, Small Claims is easier because of the minor nature. And that's the reason why emails can be accepted as proof in the Small Claims Tribunal but not the District Court.

2014-08-25 03:20:50 補充：
rhdiddl:

Deposit slips can only prove 1 thing: someone has deposited the money. In the Small Claims Tribunal, the reason why deposit slips can be used in lieu of any agreements is its minor nature. As soon as the magistrate believes an exchange has taken place, a contract exists.

2014-08-25 03:24:38 補充：
However, in the District Court, the case get more complex, which is exactly what this case faces. Is that amount a gift, or for contract performance? Since there is no written contract, we don't know.

So deposit slips can only prove 1 thing: someone has deposited the money.

2014-08-25 03:34:30 補充：
I am not able to comment on the emails since none of them is available for review. It is difficult to say it is a strong evidence or not.

Same standard of proof does not mean courts have to look at the issue in the same manner. This case has nothing to do with standard of proof, at least for now.

2014-08-27 02:52:23 補充：
Standard of proof is actually a techical terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

In civil cases, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. In simple English, as soon as the court believes there is more than 50% chance that happens, it is considered the true.

2014-08-27 02:58:21 補充：
In Small Claims, a lot of disputes arises from verbal contracts, especially a "he says, she says" situation.

Without a written contract and with a dispute of fact, the court will have to rely other evidences, like "deposit slips" to determine if the contract exists.

2014-08-27 03:01:37 補充：
If so, then the court will believe an exchange has taken place, a contract exists.

However, in the District Court, due to the amount and consquence at stake, the District Court must take a more careful approach to protect the parties.

2014-08-27 03:05:02 補充：
That's the reason why deposit slips can be only used to substaniate the deposit has taken places.

No offense - the world is not fair. The court can only do a little. You think the civil justice system works well? Think again.

2014-08-27 03:05:44 補充：
(To be fair, if taken as true, the debt in this case should be forgiven, right? But it is definitely not going to be the case. This is exactly the meaning of "the world is not fair".)

2014-08-27 03:07:31 補充：
Last but not the least - if the court is competent and the civil justice system works perfectly, nothing negative can impact the integrity of the system.

It does not matter if it is an insult or not.

過數單據 and the correspondence btw the parties are all documentary proof of the case. If in 2013, "妹妹覺得不公於電郵中與對方理論" and your 妹妹 confirmed the existence of a loan in the emails, it is difficult for your 妹妹 to agrue that there isnt any.

2014-08-24 22:05:58 補充：
Both Small Claims and District Court adopt the same standard of proof. It's not true that the proof of a case in Small Claims is easier.

2014-08-27 02:03:19 補充：
Yes, l know deposit slips can only prove "someone has deposited the money" but it cant prove the purpose in making such deposit. That's why l said "過數單據 and the correspondence btw the parties are all documentary proof of the case"...not deposit slips ALONE.

2014-08-27 02:04:49 補充：
If the deposit slips ALONE cannot prove the existence of a contract in District Court, it will be the same in the Small Claims Tribunal. That's what l meant for same standard of proof.
Small Claims Tribunal is a court for claims in smaller amount, not a place to make a claim "easier".

2014-08-27 02:08:45 補充：
To say that because the claim is of "a minor nature", an Adjudicator based on deposit slips ALONE would possibly "believe an exchange has taken place, a contract exists" is an insult on the competency of the Adjudicator and has a negative implication on our civil justice system.

2014-08-27 02:10:58 補充：
Without any additional evidence such as email confirmation, deposit slips ALONE cannot prove the case in any court. This is exactly why 前男友父親 suddenly wrote to the girl, l guess on purpose, trying to trap her to give her own written confirmation on the existence of a loan voluntarily.

2014-08-27 02:15:10 補充：
"妹妹覺得不公於電郵中與對方理論"...So far if the girl confirmed the existence of a loan in the emails, 前男友父親 has an easy case. It doesnt matter whether the girl disputed about the loan having been waived by 前男友父親, coz that will be decided by the court.

Gary 博士的意見較為正確！