During the 2000s, certain features of the Norwegian Limitation Act (NLA) as well as their interpretation by the Norwegian Supreme Court were strongly criticised in Norwegian legal literature. These criticisms related to, inter alia, 1) the rules on commencement of the limitation period for a damages claim and 2) the rules on interrupting limitation by taking legal action, particularly in respect of situations where legal proceedings end without a resolution on the substance. The general objectives and principles underlying the criticised rules are similar to the corresponding rules in the Finnish Limitation Act (FLA), but their structure and formulation in the FLA is simpler and more straightforward compared with the NLA. This article analyses whether the problems encountered in applying the NLA also encumber the FLA. It is found that problems are not wholly unknown in Finland either, but their magnitude is far from those faced under the NLA. Thus, the analysis supports the conclusion by many Norwegian scholars: the rules of the NLA could be fine-tuned to function better.

Keywords: law of obligations, prescription, limitation of actions, liability of damages, interruption of limitation