limitations of actions


Also found in: Legal.

limitations of actions

Rules for the time limits after which one may not file a lawsuit on particular theories of recovery. Also called statutes of limitations, all states have legislation specifying the time limits. As an example, one state may say that claims for negligence must be brought within 1 year of accrual of the cause of action,claims for fraud within 1 year of discovery of the fraud,claims for breach of contract within 6 years of the breach,and claims for the recovery of land within 10 years of the trespass or other wrong to land. A cause of action accrues when the wrongful conduct has occurred and you have suffered a harm.

Example: A carpenter does a poor job building some stairs, but you have no way of knowing until the stairs collapse 5 years later. Then the cause of action for negligence accrued when the stairs fell, causing injury to you or to your property. In this situation, you would have one year from that date to file a suit. If you discover the problem earlier, your cause of action is for breach of contract, for breach of the warranty to perform in a good and workmanlike manner.

References in periodicals archive ?
95) See Limitation Act 1969 (NSW); Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld); Limitations of Actions Act 1936 (SA); Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic); Limitations Act 1935 (WA); Limitation Act 2005 (WA).
97) The South Australian legislation, Limitations of Actions Act 1936 (SA), is most closely aligned to old imperial sources and bears a striking resemblance to the English statute, the Real Property Act 1833, 3 & 4 Geo 4, c 27.
Dollase, Comment, The Appeal of Rind: Limitations of Actions in Securities and Exchange Commission Civil Enforcement Actions, 49 Bus.
To approach the subject more substantively, state laws and judicial decisions differ widely on the subject of limitations of actions.
The applicable version of s 23A was that introduced by the Limitations of Actions (Personal Injuries') Act 1972 (No 8300 of 1972).
44) The Committee on the Limitations of Actions ('Tucker Committee'), Report of the Committee on the Limitation of Actions, Cmd 7740 (1949) [23] ('Tucker Report').
63) The court was unconcerned that borrowing state rules upholding or invalidating contractual limitation periods would result in interstate variation as to the validity of such periods, arguing that "by enacting section 1981 without a statute of limitations, Congress implieed that it is willing to live with a wide range of state statutes and rules goveming limitations of actions under section 1981.