POSTPONEMENT OF EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN CASE OF THE INCAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR WITHOUT A REPRESENTATIVE
Authors:
1.
The Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Type:
Article
Pages:
from 85
to 90
Status:
Published
Received:
07.04.2017
Accepted:
14.04.2017
Published:
14.04.2017
Subject area:
UDK 34 Право. Юридические науки
BBK 67 Право. Юридические науки
BBK 67 Право. Юридические науки
Language:
Russian, English
Keywords:
limitation of actions, postponing the limitation period, incapacity of the creditor, absence of representative.
Abstract (English):
The article considers such a poorly studied ground for changing the usual order for calculating the limitation period as the absence of a representative of the incapable creditor. An increased attention to the problem of the influence of the creditor’s incapacity on the running of the limitation period confirms the relevance of the topic. The article contains a brief overview of the problem in the domestic and foreign law. The author supports the idea that the absence of the representative of incapable creditor should lead to a change in the usual order of the limitation period. In support of the given idea the article comprises and evaluates the basic political and legal arguments on the both sides. Based on the results of the study of the issue recommendations are given on the appropriate content and place of the relevant norm in the institute of limitation period in the context of current reform of the civil legislation in the sphere of limitation period. Thus, in a case of the total or partial incapacity of a natural person without legal representative, the limitation period in favor of or against the said person will expire no earlier than six months after the cessation of the incapacity or the appointment of his representative, whichever comes first. The limitation period for claims between fully or partially incapable person and his legal representative will expire no earlier than six months after the cessation of the incapacity of the authorized person or the appointment of a new representative of him.
The article considers such a poorly studied ground for changing the usual order for calculating the limitation period as the absence of a representative of the incapable creditor. An increased attention to the problem of the influence of the creditor’s incapacity on the running of the limitation period confirms the relevance of the topic. The article contains a brief overview of the problem in the domestic and foreign law. The author supports the idea that the absence of the representative of incapable creditor should lead to a change in the usual order of the limitation period. In support of the given idea the article comprises and evaluates the basic political and legal arguments on the both sides. Based on the results of the study of the issue recommendations are given on the appropriate content and place of the relevant norm in the institute of limitation period in the context of current reform of the civil legislation in the sphere of limitation period. Thus, in a case of the total or partial incapacity of a natural person without legal representative, the limitation period in favor of or against the said person will expire no earlier than six months after the cessation of the incapacity or the appointment of his representative, whichever comes first. The limitation period for claims between fully or partially incapable person and his legal representative will expire no earlier than six months after the cessation of the incapacity of the authorized person or the appointment of a new representative of him.
Keywords:
limitation of actions, postponing the limitation period, incapacity of the creditor, absence of representative.
limitation of actions, postponing the limitation period, incapacity of the creditor, absence of representative.
1. Malkawi Bashar H. Prescription in Arab Civil Codes and the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts of 2004: A Comparative Analysis // Bond Law Review. 2008. Vol. 20. Iss. 1. Article 4. URL: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol20/iss1/4.
