-
thank you for clarifying. yes, we are all in the same page…
i would not use the original maxim though, as it doesn’t align with natural law.
instead i propose two separate rules if you will:
1) the one who claims has the burden of proof.
2) the one who harms must provide remedy.
as morag and you put it well, (1) allows us to ask questions: is the claim true, is there a debt due, has someone been harmed, do they believe PN/negotiable instrument not acceptable, etc etc.
.. and if turns that the claim is true, or that you actually benefited from someone’s labor, and are satisfied with their service, then per (2) you need to provide remedy, or you would be the one causing harm to someone.