Research Title: The Role of the Criteria for Distinguishing Between Statute of Limitations and Expiration in Protecting Legal Rights

Abstract

This research addresses the jurisprudential dispute over the distinction between extinctive prescription and forfeiture periods, a dispute deeply rooted in legal thought. A group of jurists believes that all periods that end with the forfeiture of a right are prescription periods, and they deny the existence of forfeiture periods independent of this concept. They argue that the passage of time should not lead to the definitive loss of rights unless legal safeguards are in place to achieve a balance between creditor and debtor. In contrast, another group believes that the statute of limitations periods differ from the statute of limitations periods in their nature and effects, but this group has failed to provide a precise and definitive standard between the two concepts, which has weakened its argument in the face of criticism. The research suggests that the statute of limitations is an exceptional system that contravenes the general principle of obligations. It was enacted to ensure the stability of transactions and protect the debtor from unexpired claims, while granting the creditor several guarantees, such as the possibility of suspending or interrupting the statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations, if recognized, strip the creditor of these guarantees and are imposed so rigidly that they are inconsistent with the principle of contractual justice. Therefore, they should be restricted to exceptional cases.