Cs sought statutory interest at the contractual price charged by D (29% each month); the Judge rejected Cs’ first rationale (that this is the price C needed to spend to borrow cash) and stated this 
process should really be limited to commercial instances.
224: Cs’ second argument had been that Cs will have utilized the extra funds to settle other HCST loans – there could be more merit to this argument, nonetheless it could be better explored regarding the facts of the case that is particular. Continue reading
