In trashy historic romance novels, there are often characters from aristocratic or at least historically wealthy families who seem determined to spend every last dinar or centime or shilling they can lay hands upon and then borrow more to spend that as well. If the family is sufficiently wealthy, and insufficiently able to control the male heir, he quickly discovers that just drinking and betting on the horses occasionally is not going to waste the fortune fast enough. Further, his family often figures out how to limit his cash allowance at some point in his destructive path downwards. Spending money on his own clothes, on clothes for women, on jewels all round, more betting, etc. all figure in the destruction of the carefully built edifice of wealth and eventually, the bankrupt scion is forced to flee to The Continent or wherever as the family attempt to fend off IOUs he has signed and bills he has at all the places he bought things.
In the world of the trashy novel, the wastrel thinks the gambling debts are the most important ones, while the family is terrified of what merchants are going to come forward with bills. And this is a point which I have found somewhat confusing. I mean, it's not like they had MasterCard or Visa back in those days. Were merchants really letting the goods out "on account"? Diamonds and shit?
Apparently, not just back then.
""That there is a paper trail of some of Columba Bush’s purchases reflects a practice that is not unusual in cases where a person obtains expensive goods without paying cash for them, said Charles W. Mooney Jr., a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor who specializes in commercial law.
The seller often files a “financing statement” under the Uniform Commercial Code to make sure he or she has the right to reclaim the goods if the debtor goes bankrupt or sells the items to another party without paying off the loan.
“Even prominent people go broke. They don’t want to extend unsecured credit,” Mooney said.
Guindon, the Mayors spokesman, added: “Many of our customers choose to take advantage of our various credit offerings. We offer competitive rates and terms which often outperform that of credit card companies, for example, interest-free plans. Customers are subject to credit approval, of course.”"
The road to hell, apparently, is paved with financing statements. Who knew?
ETA: I think the most surprising thing about this story is what a large fraction of the couple's annual income -- that year on the order of 200K -- was spent in a couple weeks on account on a few pieces of jewelry. If you really think that's a good idea, wouldn't you write a check for it and experience the pain in the moment? Obvs, that's not the thought process at the time, and elsewhere in the article is the story about misrepresenting the amount of shopping done while out of the country, failing to pay duty on it upon re-entry, and then generating a fine and bad publicity, all in the name of not wanting the hubster to know. Having been on at least one side of a spouse (not the current one) concealing purchases, and having carefully answered questions asked at the border regarding what I had bought ("I bought some used books. Oh, and this t-shirt!" These are not the droids you are looking for), I have some pretty strong, albeit mixed, feelings about that part of the story. But the confusing part _to me_ is the relationship between merchants of luxury goods and the wealthy families who wish those merchants wouldn't be so easy with the credit to their less responsible family members. Reminds me of the legislation in the run-up to Prohibition that was gonna let wives tell bars not to serve their husbands.