Bayshore Trust granted a loan to Assam based on a mortgage for $210 000 with interest at 14 percent for a one-year term. The monthly payment was $2540. At the end of the term, Bayshore renewed the mortgage for another year at 14.5 percent. During that year, Assam defaulted and Bayshore sued Assam, who argued that Bayshore induced him into a state of financial disaster by granting a mortgage with monthly payments he could not possibly make. Assam alleged that Bayshore should never have lent him such a large sum of money. At the time of the mortgage, Assam’s annual income was $28 000. He had vague plans to lease rooms in the property (which he never did). Who should decide whether a lender such as Assam can make payments on a loan? Should Bayshore be required to do anything more than protect its own interest in the mortgage? Would the outcome be different in today’s subprime mortgage environment than when this case came to court in 1992?