A Long An Province court has judged that a man has to pay the debt shown on a promissory note written by him for another man, despite the fact that the due date of the debt is February 30, as shown in the paper. Based on the promissory, the Chau Thanh District People’s Court in a trial in July forced the debtor, named V, to pay VND198 million as loan principal and interest thereon to his creditor, named D., who took action against V in March. V asserted that he had owed no money to D, but D hired underground men to threaten him and forced him to write the note stating that V had borrowed VND100 million (US$4,800). V told the court that he had to make the note under threat, and after that D kept the note, so V had no evidence to report the case to police, although he did not pay D any money. However, the court rejected V’s argument since he failed to provide evidence about him being threatened by an underground gang. The court also pointed out that a witness had put his signature on the note, confirming that V borrowed the money from D. Meanwhile, D told the court that V failed to comply with the note, so he had to bring him to court. After the court judged in favor of D, V appealed the case and is waiting for an appeal hearing to be opened. V told the media that when he was under threat, he randomly fixed the due date as February 30, 2012 without thinking about the irrationality of such date. Meanwhile, the court did not take the odd date into account, and this has left him at a disadvantage, V said. In talking with Tuoi Tre about the case, Pham Van Thai, deputy chief judge of the court, said, “Before we judged, we had pondered the impossible due date, but V did not raise any queries about it, so we put it aside.” An important issue here is that V has failed to show proof about his being forced to write the promissory, Thai said. According to a number of lawyers, the deal between these two men is null and void since the due date never existed. Even if V actually owes D VND100 million, then V only has to pay the exact amount without interest. Meanwhile, lawyer Vo Xuan Trung says that even if both sides made a mistake about the due date, their deal is still valid. But it is important that the court clarify whether V actually owes D or not, Trung said. Another lawyer, Trinh Thanh, says that V is required to prove to the court that he was forced to create such a note, as he has claimed. If he fails to do so, the court will be right in ordering him to pay the debt shown on the paper written by himself.