The identification of IOUs and the establishment of the loan relationship are like the relationship between the farmer's cultivation and the autumn harvest: only after careful sowing and cultivation can we expect the joy of a good harvest. In the same way, only when the IOU is true and valid can we confirm the establishment of the lending relationship. IOUs, as the carrier of the lending relationship, need to be treated with caution in the identification process. Once an IOU is recognized, it is like an autumn harvest, full and authentic. In this process, the art and accuracy of language are crucial. The rigor of Chinese characters and the precision of grammar, like the hard work and careful care of a farmer, nourish the soil of the borrowing relationship. Proper wording and clear logic make an IOU a trustworthy legal instrument.
In addition, vivid metaphors and anthropomorphic techniques, like a spring breeze, make the otherwise boring legal provisions vivid and interesting. The establishment of the loan relationship is like an elegant dancer, dancing on the stage of the law, and every movement is full of power and beauty. In general, the identification of IOUs and the establishment of the loan relationship are not only a legal relationship, but also a display of the wisdom and art of life. 
Under the sky of law, we use accurate language and vivid rhetoric to witness the birth and growth of every lending relationship. The importance of IOUs, as direct evidence of the lending relationship, is self-evident. When dealing with loan disputes, it is particularly important to determine the establishment of the IOU and the loan relationship. This article will delve into six important aspects of the identification of IOUs: the presumption of the actual lender, the IOU with doubtful evidence, multiple IOUs and general clauses, the burden of proof for coercing the issuance of IOUs, the determination of the nature of borrowing another person's credit card, and the evidentiary effect of transfer receipts. We'll break down each of these aspects to help you understand the full picture of IOU determination. In some cases, the name of the lender on the IOU may be phonetically different from the plaintiff's name. Based on the relevant legal provisions, we can reasonably infer that the plaintiff is the actual lender, so that it has the standing to be the subject of litigation as the plaintiff. This presumption is not only conducive to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, but also ensures the legitimacy and validity of the loan relationship. Such a presumption acts as a beacon to illuminate the path of the plaintiff's rights and ensure that he is treated fairly within the legal framework. 
In some cases, the suspect IOU has become the sole basis for the plaintiff, but the evidence is full of doubts. In the face of such a dilemma, the court must exercise its prudence and wisdom in the trial, relying not only on this isolated IOU, but also on the other evidence on record. Like a clever weaver, he carefully weaves every thread to judge whether the plaintiff's claim is solid and powerful. At this time, the court needs to act like a rigorous appraiser to carefully examine the authenticity and integrity of the evidence, so as to avoid misjudgment and infringement of the rights and interests of the parties. On the way to seek the truth, the court always upholds the balance of fairness and protects the rights and interests of all parties.
In a lending relationship, if the debtor has issued multiple IOUs, and the last IOU contains words with aggregate meanings such as the word "total", it may be regarded as a general note. After comprehensively considering other evidence, the court may make a determination of the general article and clarify the specific amount and duration of the loan. This method of identification can effectively reduce disputes and improve judicial efficiency.
The burden of proof for the issuance of IOUs under duress.
When the debtor insists that the IOU was issued under duress, the burden of proof is on him. If sufficient evidence cannot be provided to prove the existence of coercion, the debtor will still be liable to repay. The purpose of this provision is to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of creditors and prevent illegal lending relationships arising from coercion.
When someone borrows another person's credit card to make a purchase and promises to repay it, this behavior is legally recognized as a lending relationship. However, such a loan contract is invalid because the use of the credit card involves a contractual relationship between the bank and the cardholder, which cannot be arbitrarily transferred. Just like borrowing someone else's bank card, this is not allowed by law. Therefore, if someone borrows someone else's credit card to make a purchase and promises to repay it, this behavior is not only a violation of the credit card usage rules, but may also involve an illegal act.
The transfer slip, this tiny piece of paper, has the power of evidence like a boulder. If the debtor denies that it is not the loan but fails to provide other evidence, the court's scale will be inclined to determine that the transfer slip is the actual loan. This transfer slip, like a witness, has been recognized by law and confirms the existence of the loan. The six-dimensional theory here is like a thread, and the establishment of the relationship between IOUs and loans is carefully explored. In fact, it is complicated and requires care. In practice, all parties need to be well versed in the legal provisions to ensure that their rights and interests are not impaired. When the court hears the case, it should be more prudent to determine the authenticity of the evidence and safeguard the soul of the law of fairness and justice. People who read a lot can have a lot of temperament