Application of Limitation Periods to Continuous Infringements

Air Inlet Grilles for Passenger Cars

16. Defences and limitation

This chapter first discusses the defence of contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and illegality. Contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to his own damage, and permits damages to be apportioned according to what is just and equitable. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence, on the basis that the claimant freely agreed to run the risk of damage. Illegality is a complete defence, on the grounds that the law will not reward or appear to condone an illegal act. The chapter then turns to limitation periods, which restrict the amount of time within which legal actions must be commenced. The main statute is the Limitation Act 1980.

PRINCIPLE OF OPPORTUNISM IN CRIMINAL LAW (ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM AND DE LEGE FERENDA POSTULATES)

The article discusses to what extent the principle of opportunism should be used in Polish criminal law in cases where the extent of the criminal case would justify the limitation of its scope in the proceedings. However, to depart rom the principle of legality, which is binding now, it is necessary to satisfy many conditions as well as to account for the costs of the proceedings, and in many cases, to take into account limitation periods in prosecuting and judging them. It is justifi ed to compare the prosecution and judicial authorities to other entities, despite their specific functions, in terms of effi ciency of actions and the level of a product developed. The article also presents certain solutions adopted in German criminal law to formulate de lege ferenda postulates.

Legal Limitation Periods for Compensation of Damage from Motor Third Party Liability Insurance

The commencement of calculation of the period of legal limitation for compensation of damage from motor third party liability insurance is a problem for which the consensus either on scientific or practical level has not been achieved. This is mostly significant in cases where the damage was caused by a criminal offense. Recent decisions of national courts and Court of Justice of European Union leads to non-appliance of the privileged limitation period towards the motor third party liability insurer. It seems to be justified having in mind that longer period of legal limitation is prescribed as some kind of punishment against its offender. Appliying of the same period towards the insurer, infriges the fair balance between the parties, and lets the insurer mandatory to make the objections and prove the facts that are difficult to be proven due to passing of the time. The another doubtful question is determination of legal limitation for subrogation claims. Since the source of obligation in those cases is compensation of damage, and not the payment for another person, the only fair solution is the appliance of the same legal limitation period for both the insurer and the policyholder, or the claimant, to the third party liability insurer. National legislations of EU member states contain completely different legal limitation periods so it causes the legal uncertainity, especially in cross-border cases. That was the reason why the EU legislator started with procedure of harmonization of the rules on linitation, with intention of enacting of a new Directive on common limitation periods for cross-border road traffic accidents. By taking of the legislation initiative on EU level, the higher level of protection of the cross-border accident victims would be achieved. However, only if national legislators would, Legal Limitation Periods for Compensation of Damage from Motor Third Party Liability Insurance by implementation of the Directive and its proposed term for limitation of 4 years, prescribe the same term for domestic traffic accidents victims, the desired consensus would finally be achieved. At the same time, the costs occured due to the lack of harmonization would be avoided.

Limitation of Actions

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.

VII The Boundaries of the Proposed Argument

This chapter examines the scope and limits of the proposed extension of the party autonomy and most significant relationship (MSR) principles to negotiable instruments. First, it challenges the validation principle, being an apparent major limitation to the proposed broad scope argument. Second, the chapter discusses the relevance of the argument to such issues as the proprietary aspects of the instruments, remedies and limitation periods, and the holder's duties. Third, it elaborates on the relevance of the proposed argument beyond bills of exchange, promissory notes, and cheques. Specifically, the chapter explores whether the suggestions could be extended and applied to choice-of-law rules in areas where the notion of negotiability has traditionally played a role: that is, investment securities and documents of title. Fourth, the chapter sets a limit to the scope of the argument and explains in which cases the organizing principles of party autonomy and MSR shall not be applied.