Thanks - that does help clear it up a bit. I think it's safe to say that I was supposed to pay them when I took delivery of the goods a couple of years ago - there was no invoice, but I immediately ran into trouble and couldn't pay.
BUT, when I received the letter of demand, I borrowed the full amount claimed in the letter of demand and paid it in one shot. The letter did not even mention the words "Interest" or "costs" - it demanded payment of the capital only, and I paid the capital in one shot, believing that that would be the end of the matter.
Now, after the fact, they have come back demanding I pay their costs, with an implied threat that they will claim the interest from me if I don't pay their costs. But neither of these were in the letter of demand, so is it not the case that if I satisfy the written demand in full that it's the end of the matter? Or am I still liable for amounts that they chose not to claim them but now want to?
Is it possible to sue someone for interest alone, even if the capital amount has been paid? I haven't taken advice from an attorney properly yet, but an attorney friend told me that there is no precedent for suing for interest once capital has been paid in full in response to a formal demand. But that was an informal discussion - hence me looking for a more informed opinion with you :-)
I hope that clarifies my question and concern a little.
A little over 3 years ago - however the debt did not prescribe because I never disputed my indebtedness and there was some correspondence between us over that time. It was just something that was on the back burner for both me and the seller, and now just recently came to a head.
They are claiming R1000 in legal fees.
Where interest is concerned, they mentioned a figure of about R8000, but I worked out that the interest would be more, in the region of about R12,500
To be fair, I paid what they demanded. And while I don't want to be unreasonable, I also don't want to be held over a barrel and forced to pay legal fees under threat of being sued for just the interest, when neither was demanded in the first place.
Thanks very much - I think your last message really sums it up quite nicely and makes good sense.
My belief is also that if they wanted interest in the first place, they should have either claimed it or reserved their right to claim it, which they didn't.
I appreciate the help and the effort explaining things so thoroughly!
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).