US template
Simple Loan Agreement (US) template playbook
Direct answer: Manual simple loan playbook for principal, repayment timing, and default handling with clear escalation boundaries.
Audience fit
- Legal teams documenting straightforward lending arrangements.
- Finance teams standardizing low-complexity loan documentation.
- Law firms preparing baseline private lending drafts.
Risk boundaries
- Escalate secured, high-value, or cross-border financing structures.
- Escalate unclear default remedies or acceleration language.
- Escalate interest and fee terms requiring specialized compliance review.
Base template playbook
Use case
- Use this template for simple unsecured loan arrangements with clear repayment terms.
- Use it where one written record is needed to document amount, due date, and default process.
- Use it for low-complexity lending scenarios that do not require structured security packages.
Drafting assumptions
- Confirm the business objective, approval owner, and fallback escalation path before drafting begins.
- Principal amount and parties are verified before issuance.
- Repayment timeline is feasible and accepted by both parties.
- Default and notice process has been reviewed for practical enforceability.
Direct answer and implementation depth
Direct answer
- This simple loan agreement template is designed for teams that need fast first drafts while keeping legal review quality and escalation discipline intact across US, UK, and Canada workflows.
- Use this playbook when repeat contract patterns exist and negotiation outcomes can be captured as governed fallback language, not one-off edits.
- Do not use this template as final legal advice; treat it as an operational drafting system with required reviewer judgment on material risk.
Common negotiation scenarios
- Counterparty requests broader carve-outs than baseline language permits, creating pressure to trade speed for risk.
- Business team asks for deadline acceleration while key clause dependencies remain unresolved across liability, data, or termination terms.
- Reviewers receive conflicting commercial instructions, requiring explicit rationale and a documented decision owner before redline release.
Fallback language strategy
- Start with conservative language that protects enforceability and operational clarity, then offer balanced fallback only when business impact is documented.
- Keep fallback options tiered: strict, balanced, and escalation-required. Each tier should define who can approve movement to the next tier.
- Record accepted fallback language in template governance notes so repeated negotiation points become reusable policy-controlled text.
Implementation workflow
- Complete required intake fields and confirm jurisdiction context before draft generation to avoid downstream rework.
- Draft using baseline clauses, apply approved fallback language only where needed, and capture reviewer rationale for non-standard decisions.
- Route high-impact unresolved terms into escalation queue with full context packet: clause text, business objective, fallback attempts, and decision deadline.
Operational KPI watchlist
- Measure first-draft turnaround by template and jurisdiction to identify where intake quality is causing delays.
- Track reviewer override and escalation rates to detect drift in clause standards and approval consistency.
- Monitor post-negotiation exception recurrence so governance owners can prioritize template updates with measurable impact.
Template FAQ
- Q: When should this template be escalated? A: Escalate whenever proposed terms alter liability posture, statutory compliance assumptions, or dispute-resolution strategy beyond approved fallback boundaries.
- Q: How often should this template be reviewed? A: Review monthly in active negotiation periods and quarterly at minimum, using accepted redline trends and escalation outcomes.
- Q: Can business users finalize from this template alone? A: They can prepare drafts, but final material-risk decisions should remain with legal reviewers and, when required, licensed counsel.
Template intake fields
Lender name
Field id: lenderName
Type: text
Required: Yes
Borrower name
Field id: borrowerName
Type: text
Required: Yes
Loan amount
Field id: loanAmount
Type: text
Required: Yes
Repayment date
Field id: repaymentDate
Type: date
Required: Yes
Clause options and review controls
Clause options
- Keep options mapped to clear approval tiers so reviewers know what can be accepted, edited, or escalated.
- Payment option: one-time repayment or installment schedule with dated amounts.
- Default option: cure period before formal default escalation.
- Notice option: required written notices and valid delivery channels.
Escalation triggers
- Escalate whenever linked-clause dependencies change and the business owner cannot confirm risk acceptance in writing.
- Loan structure includes collateral or guarantee terms not covered by baseline.
- Counterparty requests broad acceleration rights without cure mechanism.
- Interest or fee terms appear inconsistent with policy or legal guidance.
- Borrower requests vague repayment flexibility with no written schedule.
Reviewer checklist
- Confirm lender, borrower, principal amount, and repayment date values.
- Review payment schedule and default triggers for clarity.
- Validate notice and dispute process language.
- Check whether collateral or guarantee terms require counsel draft.
- Escalate non-standard economic or enforcement terms.
US overlay guidance
US loan overlays should keep repayment and default mechanics explicit and avoid ambiguous fee or remedy terms.
Jurisdiction overrides
- Record why each override is required in this jurisdiction and who approved the final fallback posture.
- Keep repayment schedule and default timing explicit.
- Use clear cure and notice sequence before escalation actions.
- Preserve evidence and recordkeeping language for payment history.
Fallback clauses
- Add a jurisdiction-tested fallback that preserves enforceability while keeping the commercial objective achievable without hidden obligations.
- If immediate default acceleration is challenged, use cure-period fallback.
- If fee language is disputed, simplify to principal-only or approved interest model.
- If venue is contested, use neutral approved forum fallback.
Escalation conditions
- Escalate immediately when local-law uncertainty affects enforceability, remedy scope, or dispute-resolution strategy.
- Counterparty seeks ambiguous late-fee or penalty terms.
- Counterparty requests security or guarantee add-ons not in baseline scope.
- Counterparty proposes remedy language outside approved policy.
US risk and negotiation context
Jurisdiction risk hotspots
- Validate governing law and venue language against approved US policy because state-level enforceability assumptions may differ by contract type.
- Watch for one-sided remedies, broad indemnity expansions, or notice provisions that create hidden operational obligations.
- Escalate terms that conflict with data, employment, consumer, or sector-specific regulatory expectations.
Local market negotiation norms
- US counterparties often request practical fallback mechanics over abstract principles, so include operationally executable notice and cure pathways.
- Negotiations frequently focus on liability caps, termination triggers, and service commitments; align fallback options with business tolerance ranges.
- Keep redlines concise and rationale-driven to reduce cycle time with procurement and finance stakeholders.
Statutory watchpoints
- Check whether contract context introduces privacy, labor, advertising, or trade-practice obligations requiring specialized review.
- Confirm mandatory disclosures and timing rules where statutes or agency guidance may affect enforceability of clause execution.
- Route ambiguous statutory interpretation to counsel before accepting non-standard language.
Reviewer prompts
- Which US state-law assumptions are embedded in the current fallback language, and are they acceptable for this transaction profile?
- Does the proposed change increase downstream operational burden beyond what the business owner has approved in writing?
- If this term is accepted, what linked clauses must be updated to preserve consistency and enforceability?
Governing law notes
- Confirm governing law and venue for repayment disputes.
- Review any interest or fee language against applicable requirements.
- Escalate collateral, guarantee, or acceleration structures beyond baseline.
FAQ
How should this template be used?
Use the base drafting assumptions, fill all required intake fields, and apply jurisdiction overlay guidance before final export.
When should this template be escalated to counsel?
Escalate when conditions in the jurisdiction escalation section are met for US review.
Is this template legal advice?
No. It is a drafting workflow aid and must be paired with legal review for material risk decisions.
References: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau resources · UK FCA resources · Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · US courts resources
Next steps: open the builder, then review outputs with the contract review workflow.