On the basis of the three witness testimonies of van der Velde, Gjaltema and van der Sluis, when considered jointly and in their mutual relations, the court regards as proven that Nieborg had at 5 July 1974 obtained the tent on loan. Although the witnesses do not use the term `bruikleen' (the technical Dutch term for the loan of the tent, HP), this was not to be expected from legal laymen like a pub owner (van der Velde), a cattle trader (Gjaltema) and a plasterer (van der Sluis). The court regards as decisive that the witnesses speak of ``to make use of'' (van der Velde), "use" (Gjaltema) and "to give in use" (van der Sluis). 
    
 That the use of the tent was temporary is proven by the testimony of van der Velde, when related to the use he speaks of "for some time", and the testimony of van der Sluis, who mentions the period "the summer of 1974".  
    
That the use was free is proven by the testimony of van der Velde, who in this context explicitly uses the word "free", combined with the gratitude shown by Nieborg as mentioned by all three witnesses and his remark to the witnesses Gjaltema and van der Sluis that receiving the tent made it possible for him and his wife to go on holiday that year.
    
This all holds notwithstanding the fact that witness van der Velde has a considerable interest in the rejection of plaintiff's claim; witnesses more often have an interest in the outcome of a case. It should be noted that the law does not declare van der Velde inadmissible as a witness and in addition that his testimony is supported by those of witnesses Gjaltema and van der Sluis and, finally, that Nieborg has abstained from calling counterwitnesses.