Limitation of Actions

Author(s):  
Michael McParland QC ◽  
Stephanie David

This chapter reviews the operation of the statutory restrictions on the prosecution of stale claims that caused Parliament to pass acts of limitation designed to prevent the bringing of claims after a certain period to eliminate the injustice of unduly delayed claims. It analyses the operation of key domestic statutory limitation periods applicable to common construction law disputes and the policy justifications behind them. It also reviews the application of foreign limitation periods. It emphasizes the essential procedural nature of a limitation defence under English law, which requires that any applicable time bar must be pleaded by a defendant if it is to be effective.

1998 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.H. Andrews

THE English Law Commission's Consultation Paper “Limitation of Actions” is a long study of a complex subject. The subject has produced a large and detailed literature. Reform is necessary. The occasion of a Consultation Paper should stimulate both substantive and procedural lawyers to think deeply about how this subject, which is truly the gateway to justice, might be re-built.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich G. Schroeter

Mads Bryde Andersen & René Franz Henschel (eds.), A tribute to Joseph M. Lookofsky, Copenhagen: Djøf Publishing (2015), 335-362Article 39(2) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG) imposes a cut-off period on the buyer's remedies for the delivery of non-conforming goods, depriving the buyer of all remedies under the CISG if he has not given notice of non-conformity to the seller within two years after the goods were handed over.Despite the fact that the CISG contains no rules on the limitation of actions (prescription), courts in various jurisdictions have held that Article 39(2) CISG preempts the application of limitation periods under domestic laws that are shorter than two years. The present article challenges this approach and argues that the prevailing interpretation of Article 39(2) CISG misunderstands the provision's purpose. If construed correctly, no conflict exists between the CISG's two-year cut-off rule and shorter domestic limitation periods.


1989 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 472-506
Author(s):  
H. M. McLean

This article attempts to investigate an aspect of the English law on limitation of actions which has received little academic attention—its application to restitutionary claims. It will be suggested that, as the essence of a plaintiff's claim is the injustice of the defendant retaining a benefit gained at his expense, the running of time should be a defence to a restitutionary action where its passing has sufficiently eroded the injustice of that retention. In theory this should be a matter for decision purely on the facts of each case, but additionally the societal need to discourage stale litigation often requires an overall time bar based on the Limitation Act 1980. This perspective suggests a number of particular conclusions which are summarised at the end of the discussion.


1997 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Burrows

This paper,first delivered on 21 October 1995 at ajoint seminar ofthe Scottish Law Commission and the Faculty of Law, University of Edinburgh, on the subject of breach ofcontract, is an examination ofthose areas ofremediesfor breach ofcontract that are, or have been, the subject of review by the English Law Commission. The following topics are addressed: aggravated, exemplary and restitutionary damages; contributory negligence as a defence to breach ofcontract; interest on late payment of contractual debts; damages in contracts for the benefit of third parties; penalty clauses; and limitation periods. In addition some comments are made on remoteness ofdamage. It is concluded that there should not be a codification ofthe law in this area, although there is room for incremental reforms.


1997 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Harpum

This paper, which was first given on 19 October 1996 at a seminar on constructive trusts organised by the Universities of Edinburgh and Strathclyde with the Scottish Law Commission, examines the role that constructive trusts play in English law. It explains the amorphous nature of such trusts, how they are rooted in concepts of equity and conscience, and how they are often imposed in accordance with equity's traditional grounds for intervention. The central thesis of the paper is that a constructive trust, when imposed, will cause the trustee to become subject to one or more fiduciary obligations or incidents. One situation in which this is not the case— where a constructive trust is employed to impose an encumbrance on a transferee of property—is criticised. There is also a critique of the recourse to equitable maxims as a reason for the imposition of constructive trusts. The paper concludes with some reflections on the likely path of development of constructive trusts in English law and whether they ought to be more widely received into Scots law.


Moreana ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (Number 209) (1) ◽  
pp. 24-60
Author(s):  
Russ Leo

Nicolas Gueudeville's 1715 French translation of Utopia is often dismissed as a “belle infidèle,” an elegant but unfaithful work of translation. Gueudeville does indeed expand the text to nearly twice its original length. But he presents Utopia as a contribution to emergent debates on tolerance, natural religion, and political anthropology, directly addressing the concerns of many early advocates of the ideas we associate with Enlightenment. In this sense, it is not as much an “unfaithful” presentation of More's project as it is an attempt to introduce Utopia to eighteenth-century francophone audiences—readers for whom theses on political economy and natural religion were much more salient than More's own preoccupations with rhetoric and English law. This paper introduces Gueudeville and his oeuvre, paying particular attention to his revisions to Louis-Armand de Lom d'Arce, Baron de Lahontan's 1703 Nouveaux Voyages dans l'Amérique Septentrionale. Published in 1705, Gueudeville's “revised, corrected, & augmented” version of Lahontan's Voyages foregrounds the rational and natural religion of the Huron as well as their constitutive aversion to property, to concepts of “mine” and “yours.” Gueudeville's revised version of Lahontan's Voyages purports to be an anthropological investigation as well as a study of New World political economy; it looks forward, moreover, to his edition of Utopia, framing More's work as a comparable study of political economy and anthropology. Gueudeville, in other words, renders More's Utopia legible to Enlightenment audiences, depicting Utopia not in terms of impossibility and irony but rather as a study of natural religion and attendant forms of political, devotional, and economic life. Gueudeville's edition of Utopia even proved controversial due, in part, to his insistence on the rationality as well as the possibility of Utopia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document