The bill will allow the parties to enter into standstill agreements. In addition, the new law will allow parties to enter into a „standstill agreement“ to extend the limitation period from five years to one year in certain circumstances. This will replace the current practice of asserting rights and then putting them on the back burner, while further investigations will be conducted. It is not clear to what extent these limited judgments will be used in practice after the law comes into force, but their introduction is certainly welcome. Longstop, 20 years old, cannot be interrupted by either a claim or equivalent recognition, and it will not be possible to extend the period by a status quo agreement to ensure that it is indeed a Longstop in name and effect. In Scotland, unlike England and Wales, „standstill agreements“ are generally not used to extend these deadlines due to doubts about their competence. This means that the only way to preserve the right is to take legal action and deliver it. If this is not the case, the right to enforce the obligation lapses. The bill also provides for standstill agreements that, in certain circumstances, allow the parties to agree on an extension of the five-year limitation period for an additional year. For this period, only one extension is allowed. The purpose of this provision is to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings, which are collected exclusively to protect against the effects of heifering. Doing this is an expensive exercise, especially when the parties are already negotiating.
However, it should be noted that it is not necessary to give carte blanche to the parties within the meaning of such an agreement. There are only shutdown periods: for practical reasons, the most important effect is that the parties can agree on an extension of a limitation period, which is usually done south of the border by signing a „standstill agreement“. The same regime cannot work for a right that no longer exists, so that in Scotland the time limit imposed cannot currently be extended by an agreement, although new legislation probably creates only limited possibilities for this purpose. The test proposed by the Commission and followed in the bill has three strands. 1.4 Scottish law, like many legal systems, recognises that, in certain circumstances, it is right that legal rights are lost over time. The statute of limitations is justified by a number of political considerations. There are clear advantages to taking legal action at an early stage, in particular that a delay can adversely affect the quality of justice. Evidence can deteriorate or get lost, including witnesses who die or become unable to work. It may be unfair for a debtor to sue him long after the circumstances that have arisen to him have passed. . . .