Contract enforcement does not only affect single transactions but the market as a whole. Wecompare alternative institutions that allocate enforcement rights to the different parties to a credittransaction: either lenders, borrowers, or judges. Despite all parties having incentives to enforceand transact, the market flourishes or disappears depending on the treatment: paying judgesaccording to lenders' votes maximizes total surplus and equity; and a similar result appears whenjudges are paid according to average earnings in society. In contrast, paying judges according toborrowers' votes generates the poorest and most unequal society. These results suggest thatparties playing the role of borrowers understand poorly the systemic consequences of theirdecisions, triggering under-enforcement, and hence wasting profitable trade opportunities.