§ 31. The Act applies from 1 January 1980

§ 31 is about when the Limitation Act began to apply. This is called entry into force. Entry into force means the date a law starts to take effect. For the Limitation Act, the main date was 1 January 1980.

For most people reading the Act today, § 31 is not the most important provision in practical everyday life. It is first and foremost about the transition from old rules to the new Act. But it is still important for understanding how the Act was introduced, and how old claims were to be treated when the Act was new.

The provision first says that the Act comes into force on 1 January 1980. This means that claims arising after this date were, as a starting point, to be assessed under the Limitation Act. If someone borrowed money on 5 February 1980, it was the new Act that applied. If someone had an invoice (faktura) falling due after the Act came into force, the deadline had to be assessed under the new Act.

The provision then says that § 1 no. 2 came into force from the time the King decides. § 1 no. 2 is about limitation in international sales and the New York Convention (New York-konvensjonen) of 14 June 1974. This point therefore had its own entry into force. It is common for parts of a law to come into force at a different time than the rest. This can happen because regulations, international agreements or practical arrangements need to be in place first.

Then comes the transitional rule. The Act also applies to claims that arose earlier, if they were not already time-barred before 1 January 1980 under the old rules. "Fordring" means claim. In plain language: if a claim already existed before the new Act started, the new Act could still be applied to the claim, as long as the claim had not already been lost under the old rules.

This is important. When a new law is introduced, it must be decided what happens to old cases. Should the old rules apply to the end? Should the new law apply immediately? § 31 chose a middle solution: the new Act was also to apply to old claims, but not to claims that were already time-barred.

Finally there is a protective rule. Limitation under the new Act was in no case to occur before the end of 1982, unless the claim would have been time-barred earlier also under the old rules. This gave people time to adapt to the new Act. If the new Act would otherwise have made an old claim time-barred quickly, creditors (kreditorene) were given a transitional period.

This is reasonable. Imagine you had a claim from 1978. If the new Act suddenly made the claim time-barred on 1 January 1980, it would have been harsh. So as a general rule claims were protected until the end of 1982. But if the claim would in any case have been time-barred earlier under the old rules, the new Act did not save it.

Does § 31 apply to claims today?

For ordinary new claims today, § 31 has little practical significance. If your claim arose in 2024, 2025 or 2026, you do not use the transitional rule from 1980. Instead you use the ordinary rules in the Limitation Act: § 2 on the 3-year period, § 3 on the starting point, the special rules in §§ 4 to 13, and the rules on interruption and effect.

But § 31 may still have historical significance. If you read older case law, older documents or old legal assessments, § 31 can explain why certain claims were treated under transitional rules. It can also matter in very special cases involving very old legal relationships, although such cases are rare.

For the Rettsregel reader, the main point is this: § 31 is not a rule you normally use to calculate the deadline on an invoice, a loan or a compensation claim today. It tells you when the Act started and how the transition from old law to new law was to be handled.

This also means that you should not apply the "end of 1982" rule to modern claims. That rule was transitional protection when the Act was introduced. It does not give a general extra deadline for claims today.

This is a common misunderstanding when people read entry-into-force provisions. They see a date or a special deadline and think it applies to all cases. It does not. It applied to the transition from the old rules to the Limitation Act.

What does it mean that the Act applies to older claims?

When the Act came, many claims already existed. People had borrowed money. Businesses had unpaid invoices. Compensation (erstatning) claims could have arisen. Agreements could have been breached. If the Act only applied to new claims, old and new rules would have existed side by side for a long time.

§ 31 says that the new Act also applies to claims that arose earlier, as long as they were not already time-barred under the old rules before 1 January 1980. This made the system tidier. More claims could be assessed under the same law.

But the Act was not to bring dead claims back to life. If a claim was already time-barred under the old rules before 1 January 1980, it did not suddenly become valid again. This is important. The transitional rule only helped claims that were still alive.

This is a general principle often used in transitional rules. New rules can apply to existing situations, but they do not necessarily give new life to claims that have already lapsed. Once a claim is time-barred, the debtor (skyldneren) should be able to rely on that.

At the same time, § 31 protected creditors against the new Act abruptly cutting the deadline. That is why there was the rule that limitation under the new Act was not to occur before the end of 1982, unless the old rules would have led to earlier limitation.

Why is the New York Convention mentioned in § 31?

Because § 1 no. 2 on international sales had its own entry into force. International conventions often require separate decisions. Norway must not only pass a law internally. It may also be necessary to decide when the convention is to apply, and how it is to be announced.

§ 1 no. 2 refers to the New York Convention of 14 June 1974 on limitation in international sales. Such rules do not apply to ordinary small Norwegian claims between private individuals. They apply to international sales, typically where the seller and buyer have their places of business in different countries and the convention applies.

For ordinary cases about private loans, invoices, deposits, tradespeople's claims or compensation in Norway, this is rarely relevant. But for businesses that buy and sell goods internationally, it may matter.

The fact that § 31 singles out § 1 no. 2 shows that the Act has two layers: the Norwegian Limitation Act and an international convention that applies in certain sales relationships. They did not need to start at the same time.

What does "the end of the year 1982" mean?

It means 31 December 1982. The transitional rule said that limitation under the new Act was not to occur before the end of 1982. This was a minimum period for old claims that were caught by the new Act.

Imagine a claim arose before 1980, and under the new Act the period would actually have run out already in 1980 or 1981. § 31 then prevented the claim from becoming time-barred before 31 December 1982. The creditor got time to interrupt limitation under the new rules.

But if the claim would have been time-barred earlier under the old rules, the transitional rule did not help. It was not meant to give better rights than the old rules already gave in such cases. It was only meant to prevent the new Act from acting too abruptly.

This is history today. But it shows how the legislature tried to create a fair transition. New rules should be clear, but they should not trip up people who acted under an old system without reasonable time to adapt.

What happens if you get it wrong?

If you apply § 31 to a modern claim, you may calculate the deadline completely wrong. You may think you have an extra deadline that does not exist. Then the claim may become time-barred under the ordinary rules while you are looking at a transitional rule that does not apply.

If you are investigating old claims from before 1980, the opposite mistake can happen. You may overlook that the transitional rule gave protection until the end of 1982. In historical cases, § 31 can therefore be important.

If you read older judgments or legal texts, you should note whether the case concerned the transition from old law to new law. Then § 31 may explain the outcome.

For modern claims: do not use § 31 as a deadline rule. Go to § 2, § 3 and any special rules. Find the start date, the length of the period and any interruptions of the limitation period (fristavbrudd).

For historical claims from around 1980: check whether the claim was time-barred under the old rules before 1 January 1980. If not, check how § 31 affected the transition.

If the case concerns an international sale, also see § 1 no. 2 and the convention rules. Do not apply ordinary Norwegian rules uncritically if the convention applies.