Your supplier charges you too much on their invoice, so you protest that invoice. So do you also have to indicate how much you want to pay? Is it best to pay that part in advance or is it better not to pay anything yet?
.png)
Protest quickly remains the message. Act quickly if you do not agree to a certain invoice and protest as soon as possible. After all, if you do not, your supplier can assume that you agree with his invoice.
Protest for part of the invoice. Your protest must be sufficiently concrete; state clearly why you are protesting exactly. Often, the protest does not relate to the full invoice but to part of it.
The rule, of course, is that anyone who only partially protests an invoice must indeed pay the undisputed part. This is already being offended by immediately protesting the entire invoice and paying nothing. Initially, it can be a good strategy to wait a while before payment, even if you only dispute part of the invoice amount. For example, this may be better to keep some pressure on you if you still need to get something done from that supplier.
Feel free to wait to see if the supplier accepts the protest and sends a credit note for the disputed part. After all, many find it rather cumbersome to enter an invoice only partially. To make the accountant's work easier, you might want to ask for a credit note and/or adjusted invoice first.
After all, it is not always so black and white that you can immediately decide for yourself how much is due, because the calculation is sometimes complex. For example, you may think that your contractor has charged too many hours for a certain job, but you don't immediately know exactly what is reasonable. This may still need to be negotiated.
It's best not to wait too long to do that either... If the supplier increases the pressure and threatens to sue, a partial payment before the case is filed is definitely appropriate. Then only dispute what you think you can dispute and pay the part of the invoice that you have no problem with anyway.
If your supplier has already received a (large) part of his invoice, the threshold will be higher for using a lawyer for the disputed part, especially if that is only a limited amount.
If the court finds you “in the wrong” for the uncontested part, you will also have to pay court costs and legal compensation for that part. You will also have to pay interest and possibly collection costs on that part. This also increases the 'stakes' of the dispute, so that the flat-rate compensation for lawyers' fees (legal compensation) comes into a higher bracket. You can avoid these extra costs by paying for what you can't dispute more quickly.
It also makes your case more credible. It will also appear better in court that you are not considered a “defaulter”. After all, this also improves the credibility of your protest for the disputed part.
When you land a large order for a new customer, you naturally want to make sure that payment is made correctly. Under the guise “trust is good, but control is better”, it's best to ask for an advance just to be on the safe side. But is that possible just like that? Are there certain limits that you should respect? And why is it important to explicitly include such an advance in your contracts?
03/05/2025
You will receive an invoice from a supplier for a delivery four years ago. Isn't that a bit long ago, do you still have to pay for it? What exactly does that work and what did the judge think of it in the end?
10/06/2025
A customer does not pay a small invoice. However, you are wary of the costs of a lawyer. So you can't go to court yourself, without the intervention of a lawyer? How do you proceed with this?
03/06/2025