Before filing an appeal or starting an arbitration procedure, you should consider a simple legal instrument, called a toll agreement, that can help resolve disputes and avoid litigation altogether. While a toll agreement seems to benefit a plaintiff in the first place, there are also some good reasons why a defendant wants to enter into a toll agreement. One reason is to give an applicant additional time to assess the feasibility of their application; Without a statute of limitations, an applicant may be forced to take legal action only to meet a deadline. Where litigation can be avoided, it may be advantageous for a defendant to agree on the term limit for a specified period of time or until certain conditions are imposed. Where a non-judicial statute of limitations does not affect the underlying law and merely defines the period during which an action based on that right can be commenced, these statutes of limitation may be shortened by explicit, fair or paid consent. Lewis v. Taylor, 2014 COA 27, 15. On the other hand, a judicial statute of limitations destroys the right of appeal that underlies the appeal. Id. at 14.
A judicial requirement cannot be revoked fairly and cannot be overturned by a toll agreement between the parties to an action. Id.C`s a good reason to put it away as a reference. The particular facts may not be repeated and we do not agree on whether the toll agreements are a good idea. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. However, if you design and execute one, be careful and clear. In response to these problems in this particular context, a status quo agreement could be an appropriate solution. The use of a status quo agreement provides temporary training between the parties can help avoid defaults in contract defaults and the consequences that result from them, while preserving existing trade relationships to avoid these potentially deadly pitfalls. It was decided that a fair toll would apply primarily where the applicant is actively misled by the defendant about the remedy, or is exceptionally prevented from asserting his rights. It is also important that the fair toll doctrine does not require fault on the part of the defendant, such as fraud or misrepresentation.  The threat of possible litigation is the elephant in space that makes an effective toll agreement. A savvy potential complainant may use this elephant as an advantage, as a potential accused may well lean back to not be prosecuted.
So if you think you might soon be involved in a lawsuit, consider buying some time with a toll contract. You get some of the benefits of a process strategy without any cost. If you would like more information on whether a status quo or toll contract may be useful or appropriate for your business, please contact the lawyer for Sullivan-Worcester LLP, with whom you consult regularly, or the lawyers above. If you are about to take legal action, or if you think you are being sued, you should consider proposing a toll agreement. Maryland does not allow a fair toll on the statute of limitations and leaves the statute of limitations only if the legislature has created an exception to its application.  The Maryland courts have held that the limitation period reflects a statutory judgment over a reasonable period of time during which a person should bring his or her action with due diligence.  Part of the printing when filing an action is certain that it will be filed before the expiry of the applicable limitation period.