§ 14. The debtor's acknowledgement interrupts limitation

§ 14 is one of the most practical rules in the whole Limitation Act. It says that limitation can be interrupted if the debtor acknowledges the claim. To acknowledge means to confirm that the claim exists. In everyday language: the person who owes money admits that the debt is real.

This can happen expressly. That means in clear words. The debtor may write: "I owe you NOK 25,000." Or: "I confirm that the invoice (fakturaen) is unpaid." Or: "I will pay back the loan by 1 December." Statements like these can interrupt limitation.

Acknowledgement (erkjennelse) can also happen through conduct. That means the debtor does something that shows the claim is accepted. The law mentions two examples: a promise to pay and payment of interest. If the debtor pays interest on the loan, that normally shows that the debtor acknowledges that the loan exists. A partial payment can also in many cases be an acknowledgement of the claim, if the act is naturally understood that way.

But not every reply is enough. "I'll look into the matter" is not necessarily an acknowledgement of the claim. "Send documentation" is not necessarily an acknowledgement of the claim either. "I don't agree, but I can pay a little to get it over with" may be unclear. The more precisely the debtor confirms the basis and amount of the claim, the safer you are.

§ 14 is important because it gives an easier way to interrupt limitation than legal action (rettslige skritt). You do not necessarily need to file a complaint to the Conciliation Board (forliksklage) if the debtor clearly acknowledges the claim. But you should be careful. A weak or unclear message can create a new conflict later.

When limitation is interrupted by acknowledgement of the claim, you get a new period under § 20. The new period runs from the acknowledgement, or from a later time if you can only demand performance (oppfyllelse) later. That is why § 14 and § 20 are closely linked.

What is a clear acknowledgement of the claim?

A clear acknowledgement of the claim is a message or act that shows that the debtor accepts the obligation. The safest is a written confirmation with the amount. For example: "I acknowledge that I owe you NOK 42,000 from the loan of 1 May 2024."

It should state who owes, who the claim is against, the amount and preferably what the claim is based on. The clearer, the better. If the matter later ends up in a dispute, it is much easier to point to a clear message than to a vague conversation.

An oral acknowledgement of the claim can in principle count, but it is hard to prove. If the debtor says on the phone that they owe you money, you should send a summary afterwards: "As agreed in our phone call today, you confirmed that you owe NOK 18,000. Let me know if this is wrong." Even better is for the debtor to reply and confirm themselves.

Acts can also be enough. If the debtor pays interest, that is a strong sign. If the debtor pays an instalment (avdrag), that can also be a strong sign. But label the payment. If you receive NOK 5,000, it should be clear which claim the payment relates to. Otherwise the debtor can later say that the payment was for something else.

A promise to pay is also expressly mentioned in the law. If the debtor writes: "I'll pay the rest next month", that is normally an acknowledgement of the claim. But again: the amount and basis should be clear.

What is not enough?

Not every message from the debtor interrupts limitation. This is a common trap. You cannot automatically treat any contact as an acknowledgement of the claim.

If the debtor writes "I need to check this", that is not necessarily an acknowledgement of the claim. If the debtor writes "I dispute the claim", that is not an acknowledgement of the claim. If the debtor asks for a copy of the invoice, that may be a sign that the matter is being looked into, but not that the claim is accepted.

If the debtor offers a small amount "without admitting liability", that is also risky. Wording like this is used precisely to avoid the payment being interpreted as an acknowledgement of the claim. In that case you should not rely on limitation having been interrupted.

If the debtor is silent, that is not an acknowledgement of the claim either. You can send many payment reminders (purringer). If the debtor does not reply and does not pay, you have not received an acknowledgement of the claim. Then you must consider legal action before the period runs out.

This is why § 14 is both useful and dangerous. It is useful when you get a clear confirmation. It is dangerous if you interpret polite dialogue as an acknowledgement of the claim when it really is not.

How should you ask for an acknowledgement of the claim?

You should write briefly and specifically. Don't make it more complicated than necessary. Write: "Can you confirm in writing that you owe NOK 35,000 under the loan of 10 March 2025?" Or: "Can you confirm that invoice 10045 for NOK 12,400 is still unpaid?"

If the debtor says yes, you have good evidence. If the debtor does not reply, you have at least made it clear that you cannot rely on an acknowledgement of the claim. Then you must consider the next step.

If the debtor wants a payment extension, you should link it to an acknowledgement of the claim. For example: "I can accept payment on 1 December if you confirm that you acknowledge the claim of NOK 35,000." That way the extension does not just become passive waiting.

If you are the debtor and actually do not agree, you should not write unclearly. Do not write "I will pay" if you dispute the claim. Write instead: "I dispute the claim and do not acknowledge any obligation to pay." If you want to enter into a settlement (forlik) without admitting liability, this must be stated clearly.

What happens if you get it wrong?

If you think you have received an acknowledgement of the claim, but the message is actually unclear, you can lose the claim. This happens when the period runs out while you are waiting. Afterwards the debtor says the claim is time-barred (foreldet), and you point to a message that is not clear enough. Then your position may be weak.

If you receive a partial payment without explanation, this can also lead to conflict. The debtor can say that the payment was for something else. So label payments and get written confirmation.

If you are the debtor, on the other hand, you can interrupt limitation without meaning to. If you write too clearly that you owe the money, a new period may start to run. That is why you should be precise if you dispute the claim.

Ask for a clear written acknowledgement of the claim. Write the amount and the basis. Do not rely on oral conversations if the deadline matters.

If the debtor wants to pay later, have it worded as an acknowledgement of the claim. For example: "I confirm that I owe NOK 25,000 and will pay by 1 November."

If you do not get a clear acknowledgement of the claim, consider legal action in good time. § 14 is great when it works. But it is no substitute for keeping track of deadlines.