This appendix gives, word for word in PRO SE's English, the fourteen records the paper read, in the order of the case list. Each is a synthetic record, offered by PRO SE as general information and not as legal advice; none is a real case.
Unenforced attachment
PRO SE question timing-provisional-window-limitation, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-provisional-window-limitation?lang=en.
Does a provisional attachment that was never enforced still interrupt the limitation period?
The decision, the records of notice and the material showing the attempt to enforce and its result are examined together. Material showing whether and why the attachment was set aside is also needed.
One interpretation holds that because a decision granting the attachment was obtained, the interruption takes effect even though the attachment was never enforced.
Another interpretation holds that because the attachment was never enforced, it has no interrupting effect.
Where the attachment could not be enforced within the period, by what standard is interruption to be judged?
The matter is looked at again if the material on enforcement or on whether the attachment was set aside changes.
Loss of the term
PRO SE question timing-acceleration-default, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-acceleration-default?lang=en.
When the benefit of the term is lost, do default and the limitation period both move earlier?
In these practice materials, the agreements between the debtor company and the supplier on the due date and on security, the change in the state of the secured property and the record of notice are examined.
One interpretation holds that once the debtor has reduced the security and can no longer rely on the benefit of the term, the remaining debt falls due, so default and the limitation period both start to run.
Another interpretation holds that loss of the benefit of the term, the start of default and the start of the limitation period each have their own requirements and must be judged separately.
Can the time a change in the security is confirmed and the time the right can first be exercised be treated as the same moment?
The matter is looked at again if the records on the due date agreement, the terms of the security, the demand for performance or the time of the breach change.
Defect period
PRO SE question timing-warranty-periods, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-warranty-periods?lang=en.
How does the short period for exercising a claim in respect of defects differ from the general limitation period?
In these practice materials, material is needed that confirms the record of the defect in the object, how it was delivered and how the defect came to be known.
One interpretation holds that once the short period has run, a warranty claim based on the defect can no longer be pursued.
Another interpretation holds that apart from the short period, whether the general limitation period has run must also be considered.
How is it decided which period, counted from which starting point, comes into question first?
The matter is looked at again if the material showing the time of delivery or the time the defect became known changes.
Stay in rehabilitation
PRO SE question timing-insolvency-stay-limitation, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-insolvency-stay-limitation?lang=en.
What happens to the limitation period while enforcement and similar steps are stopped by rehabilitation or individual rehabilitation proceedings?
In practice materials such as these, we confirm what the stay orders or prohibition orders cover and for how long, whether a tax collection disposition is involved, and the entries in the list of creditors. We look at both the span during which the order was in effect and the margin after it ended.
One interpretation holds that the limitation period did not run while the stop was in effect.
Another interpretation holds that the period did not stop running, and only its completion was postponed.
Depending on the basis and scope of the stop, should it be read as the period not running or as completion being postponed?
We revisit the matter when a change or cancellation of the order, or a resumption, comes to light. If the point at which the effect ended changes, we look at the conclusion again too.
Entry in the list
PRO SE question timing-insolvency-claim-interruption, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-insolvency-claim-interruption?lang=en.
When is the limitation period interrupted by filing a claim or by its entry in the list of claims?
In practice materials of this kind, we examine together what the administrator's list records and whether the creditor's claim filing was received and maintained. We also check for the list, the claim filing, and any notice of withdrawal or ruling of dismissal.
One interpretation holds that once a claim is entered in the administrator's list, participation in the proceedings interrupts the limitation period even without a separate filing by the creditor.
Another interpretation holds that entry in the list covers only what is entered, so for any part that differs from the entry, interruption is recognized only where the creditor maintains its filing.
Should interruption be judged by the entry in the list or by whether the filing was maintained?
If it later turns out that the filing was withdrawn or dismissed, we re-examine whether the interruption took effect. We also re-examine it if the list was corrected or a correction was permitted.
Objection to a payment order
PRO SE question timing-payment-order-interruption, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-payment-order-interruption?lang=en.
After an objection to a payment order, does the interruption of the limitation period for the claim continue?
In this kind of practice material, we examine the materials that confirm the application for and service of the payment order, and whether an objection was filed and how far it reaches.
One view is that when a claim moves into litigation through an objection, the interruption continues from the time of the original application.
Another view is that whether the interruption continues depends on whether the payment order loses effect or becomes final.
How should the extent to which a suit is deemed filed at the time of the application be read together with the extent to which the payment order loses effect?
We revisit this if the lawfulness of the service or of the objection is newly confirmed, or if the way the procedure was carried out changes.
Cancelled attachment
PRO SE question timing-attachment-interruption, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-attachment-interruption?lang=en.
If a provisional attachment is cancelled, what happens to the interruption of the limitation period?
We examine the operative parts and the reasons of the attachment order and of the order cancelling it, and the materials needed to confirm how each was made known to the other party.
Depending on the ground for cancellation, there is room to treat the interruption as never having taken effect.
Where the person benefiting from the limitation period was not notified, there remains room to treat the effect as turning on the time of notice.
Which ground of cancellation and which time of notice apply to this matter?
We revisit this if the materials on the progress of the main action, the provision of security or a change of circumstances change.
A single demand
PRO SE question timing-demand-letter-interruption, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-demand-letter-interruption?lang=en.
Does a single demand both interrupt the limitation period and put the debtor in delay?
In this type of practice material, we check the demand letter, the records of its dispatch and delivery, and materials on whether the debt has a fixed due date and on the joint liability relationship.
There is room to view a single demand as producing both the interruption of the limitation period and the start of the debtor's delay at the same time.
Another view is that a demand must be read separately as a notice of demand under the limitation rules and as a demand for performance, so that interruption and delay turn on different requirements.
Under what requirements do the interruption of the limitation period and the debtor's delay each arise?
We revisit this if materials on a judicial claim or an attachment are added, or if the facts about the due date change.
How the suit ended
PRO SE question timing-suit-interruption-outcomes, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-suit-interruption-outcomes?lang=en.
What happens to the interruption of the limitation period if the suit is dismissed, rejected on the merits, or withdrawn?
Records showing how the litigation began and how it ended are examined, and the timing and content of any further action taken after termination are verified.
If the claim remains pending in trial and the trial becomes final, the interruption can be regarded as continuing from the time it began and as proceeding anew from the time it was confirmed.
If the litigation ends by dismissal, rejection, or withdrawal, the interruption loses its effect, and it can be regarded as having been interrupted by the original claim only if further action is taken within the period prescribed.
What must be determined first, between the manner of termination and the subsequent action, in order to render a judgment?
It is reviewed again if the manner of termination of the litigation changes or if a new claim, attachment, or the like is found to have arisen after termination.
Acknowledgment or waiver
PRO SE question timing-acknowledge-vs-waiver, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-acknowledge-vs-waiver?lang=en.
How should a statement made before or after completion of the limitation period be distinguished as an acknowledgment or a waiver?
We examine together the materials showing the debtor company's intention to acknowledge the right, and whether the relevant time fell before or after completion.
A reading holds that a statement made before completion is treated as an acknowledgment, which is a ground interrupting the period, so that the period running until then is disregarded and counted anew.
A reading holds that a statement made after completion is treated as a waiver of the benefit of the limitation period already acquired, and is assessed within a framework different from that of interruption.
How should the court ask together whether the time of the statement passed beyond completion, and whether the statement contained an acknowledgment of the right?
We revisit the question if newly revealed materials, or the existence of a final judgment, has changed.
Setoff with a barred claim
PRO SE question timing-limitation-setoff, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-limitation-setoff?lang=en.
Can a claim already barred by the statute of limitations still be used for a setoff?
In practice materials of this kind, one reviews materials that disclose the types of debts opposed to each other, the time of performance, and the presence and the timing of the expression of intent to set off.
This is the interpretation that, if the time at which the setoff could have been asserted fell before the statute of limitations ran, an expression of intent made after it ran is also permitted.
This is the interpretation that, if the time at which the setoff became assertable fell after the statute of limitations ran, a setoff made after it ran is not permitted.
Does the issue turn on which came first, the date the setoff became possible or the date the limitation period ran out?
In practice materials of this kind, the conclusion is reconsidered when a premise about the timing of the expression of intent, or about the nature of the debt, changes.
Document like a judgment
PRO SE question timing-judgment-ten-years, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-judgment-ten-years?lang=en.
Does the long statute of limitations also apply to a claim that has been made final by a document having the same effect as a judgment?
In exercises of this kind, one examines together the type of final document, the point at which it became final, and the record that reveals the content of the claim.
There is an interpretation that even where the final document is not a judgment, once it is recognized as having the same effect, the long statute of limitations applies.
As for the portion for which the time of collection had not yet arrived at the point of finality, it is not converted into the long statute of limitations.
How should one consider together what kind of document the claim was made final by, and whether the time of collection had already arrived at the point of finality?
In exercises of this kind, one revisits the matter if new material concerning the making of the final document or the due date for payment comes to light.
Interest after the principal
PRO SE question timing-interest-delay-limitation, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-interest-delay-limitation?lang=en.
Does the limitation period for the principal, once it runs out, also extinguish the interest and the damages for delayed performance?
In such practice materials, one looks for materials that confirm the monetary payment agreement and the record of interest arising between the debtor company and the supplier.
Interest attached to the principal and money payable for delayed payment are rights subordinate to the principal, so they can be interpreted as sharing the principal's fate.
Interest that arises on a regular basis can be regarded as an independent claim, so it can be seen that whether it is extinguished is determined separately from the principal.
Should money payable for delayed payment be treated as a right subordinate to the principal or as a separate claim?
If new materials emerge on the content of the interest agreement or on the point in time at which the principal is extinguished, they are reviewed again.
Price under a short period
PRO SE question timing-commercial-short-limitation, in the Timing section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/timing-commercial-short-limitation?lang=en.
When does the shortened limitation period apply to claims for the purchase price?
In this kind of practice material, we confirm the cause of the claim and the time of performance from the contract, the tax invoice, and the delivery confirmation.
The price connected to production, sales, or construction is regarded as subject to a shortened limitation period.
A price that does not correspond exactly to the wording of the transaction is regarded as subject to the general limitation period.
Must we first determine which wording of the transaction this price falls under?
We revisit the matter when the facts established by a judgment or settlement, or the question whether the time of performance has arrived, come to light.