Thanks, yes I missed the docket number.
Sure took its time reaching trial....wow
General Discussion - SOL - Canada
4 Posts • Page 1 of 1 •
1
RE: SOL
by HonestAbe » Wed Jan 08, 2014 01:16:25 PM
The docket numbers listed are 726/08 and 486/10. The first indicates the claim was the 726th action filed in that courthouse of 2008, while the second possibly indicates the order of the settlement conference. I have no idea why the case took until Nov. 28, 2013 to be concluded.
In any event, as per paragraph 7, the interest rate changes from compound to simple once the action is filed or the account is written off because the business contract has been terminated.
The balance on default was $47,149.44. Since there were (5 x 365) + (1+5) = 1831 days from November 23, 2008 to Nov. 28, 2013 @ 28.8%, the defendants owed $68,118.42 by the date of trial. (Actually, they owed $68,081.20 because the judge shouldn't have added the extra day's interest from the leap year of 2012.)
Steve Hoddinott would do well to read paragraph 4 of this case because it explains how the use of the proceeds from a finance agreement constitutes de facto acceptance under the Consumer Protection Act, irrespective of whether a signature was obtained.
Also of note is that, generally, the rate that prevails in Ontario is the rate contained in the agreement as of the default date, not the lower statutory one. It's generally used as a default only when there is no applicable one in the contract. For example, suits involving personal injuries.
In any event, as per paragraph 7, the interest rate changes from compound to simple once the action is filed or the account is written off because the business contract has been terminated.
The balance on default was $47,149.44. Since there were (5 x 365) + (1+5) = 1831 days from November 23, 2008 to Nov. 28, 2013 @ 28.8%, the defendants owed $68,118.42 by the date of trial. (Actually, they owed $68,081.20 because the judge shouldn't have added the extra day's interest from the leap year of 2012.)
Steve Hoddinott would do well to read paragraph 4 of this case because it explains how the use of the proceeds from a finance agreement constitutes de facto acceptance under the Consumer Protection Act, irrespective of whether a signature was obtained.
Also of note is that, generally, the rate that prevails in Ontario is the rate contained in the agreement as of the default date, not the lower statutory one. It's generally used as a default only when there is no applicable one in the contract. For example, suits involving personal injuries.
- HonestAbe
- Member
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 04:41:18 PM
- Province: BC
Return to General Discussion - Discussion Area
