The Mitigation Of Mandatory Of Limitation Of Action

The statute of limitations system originated from Roman law and gradually developed in the European countries.The "lawsuit statute of limitations" in China's feudal society is different from the statute of limitations in the sense of modern civil law.The traditional civil law theory abides by the timeliness of the statute of limitations,and believes that the statute of action is due to its legitimacy,while the justification of the statute of limitations system is to urge the creditors to exercise their rights,avoid double payment by the debtor and safeguard the public interest.As a support.The mandatory time limit of the lawsuit is regarded as the standard in the civil law system of the civil law system.Our national law is influenced by the former Soviet Union and also confirms the mandatory time limit system.The statute of limitations is overemphasizing the theoretically weak possibility.As far as jurisprudence is concerned,the form in which rights holders control their rights is very broad and uninterrupted.The law forces them to exercise in a timely manner as a wayward parentalism.The argument that avoiding the obligation of the obligor to face double performance because the evidence is difficult to preserve ignores the initiative of the civil subject in the transaction process and the convenience brought by the development of science and technology.As for the maintenance of social public interest,it is a purely theoretical hypothesis,and cannot withstand the logic of deduction and practice.Therefore,the legitimacy of the statute of limitations is still worth discussing,and the mandatory value of deduction is justified.China's current civil law is based on the statute of limitations of the former Soviet Union,and the effect of statute of limitations is positioned as the suffocation of the right to win,thus forming a strong argument for the statute of limitations.However,with the development of society,both theory and legislation have noticed the drawbacks of the victory of the right to win,and the shift to the right of defense.This change can be described as a mandatory straw for the statute of limitations:in the former,the court has the responsibility to find out the facts of the case,and the statute of limitations has a considerable impact on the nature.In the latter case,the court only needs to tell the two parties The evidence is in the middle of the referee,and it is difficult to involve the so-called public interest.In fact,the legitimacy of the statute of limitations is to remind the parties of the distribution of rights and obligations and to supplement the loopholes,rather than to maintain the existing order.Conversely,if third-party interests are involved,they will be more respectful in the way they are handled in good faith order.From the perspective of ought to be,the statute of limitations is not necessary,and negating it will not have a negative impact.The exercise of rights is not unrestricted,and the parties' agreement to exclude the limitation of time limit will impose a heavy burden on the obligor.There are many suggestive provisions in the civil law for the parties to choose and apply.If there is no valid agreement,it can be directly applied,for example,the implementation of the contract law.At the same time,legislation should also take into account the continuity of legal development.Therefore,while the legislation recognizes that the statute of limitations can be agreed upon,the ideal choice should be the corresponding period of statute of limitations,which is automatically applied when the parties do not agree.Correspondingly,the statute of limitations,the starting point,and the reasons for suspension and interruption should also be allowed in principle,and special circumstances can be resolved by exceptions.