|
''Rembrandt Custodians Ltd v Pro-Drill (Auck) Ltd'' is an often referenced case in New Zealand credit circles of the hazards of issuing a Statutory Demand against a company to make them pay a disputed account. ==Background== Pro-Drill invoiced Rembrandt on 29 November 2002 for $5,185.97 of drilling work. This invoice remained unpaid as of 20 January, which Rembrandt later stated was simply overlooked over the Christmas period. Unaware of this, Pro-Drill referred this account to Law Debt Collection for debt collection, and immediately sent out a demand letter. However, before Rembrandt had received this letter, they had paid this account on 9 February 2003. Unfortunately, this left Law Debt Collection's fee of $1,037.19, which Rembrandt disputed liability for as the claimed that $1,037.19 for issuing just one letter was not reasonable and it was "out of proportion with all commercial reality". Law Debt Collection, rather than credit this fee as most professional debt collection agencies would have, served a Statutory Demand on Rembrandt in order to get paid. To further complicate matters, the demand was signed by a Law Debt Collection, and not by their client or by a solicitor. Rembrandt applied to the High Court to have the statutory demand set aside. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Rembrandt Custodians Ltd v Pro-Drill (Auck) Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|