18 Dez Tolling An Agreement
Id. to 2 (by adding). The text highlighted at the end will be important because counsel for the complainants executed the toll agreement on August 9, 2013, but did not pass on the complainant`s name (and therefore the toll) until February 3, 2014, more than two years after the applicant`s proceedings. Id. at 2. It turned out that the equipment manufacturer`s lawyers had sent the applicants` lawyer a toll agreement for the cases in which the device was concerned, according to which the toll period would be triggered by lawyers without notification of the applicants. Since the devil is being developed, we will literally define the corresponding terms: the toll agreement must define the length of time the parties suspend the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is not intended to restrict or affect a defence other than a prescription defence that [The Defendant] has, have or would have had in the absence of that agreement. Nor does this agreement renounce a defence against the statute of limitations that could have been invoked before the date of the toll period. When the toll period expires, [defenders] will have all the defences, as they did on the first day of the toll period. The District Court`s decision, which issued a summary judgment for the defense, was rendered on (1) the choice of law, (2) the express conditions of the toll agreement and (3) the application of the California discovery and doctrinal concealment rule.
(2) Commercial considerations among co-accused may have an impact on decisions on toll agreements. Co-accused should consider toll agreements if they wish for additional time to consider filing counter-claims against each other. Under the laws of some states, counter-claims must be filed while proceedings are pending, requiring defendants to decide, before trial, whether to assert counter-claims. In some cases, this decision could be imposed on a defendant before it is clear whether the applicant has a significant liability case. When counter-claims are invoked, the defendants may focus too much on the transfer of responsibility between them and involuntarily assist the plaintiff in determining liability or increasing the value of the case by developing facts that have been overlooked by the applicant.