§ 32. Amendments to other acts when the Limitation Act came into force
§ 32 is a technical provision. It says that other acts were repealed or amended when the Limitation Act (foreldelsesloven) came into force. In the current text of the law, the list of amendments itself is marked with dashes, because the amendments have already been carried out.
Machine-translated from Norwegian. The Norwegian text is the one that applies. Read the original in Norwegian.Norsk English العربية Polski Українська
The text of the law (unofficial translation)
From the day the Act enters into force, the following amendments are made to other legislation: – – –
What does this mean?
§ 32 is not an ordinary rule about limitation periods (foreldelsesfrister). It does not say when a claim (krav) becomes time-barred (foreldet). It does not say how the period is interrupted. It does not say what happens to interest (renter), a security interest (pant) or a guarantee (kausjon). It is a technical final provision.
When the Limitation Act was passed, other acts had to be tidied up. The old Limitation Act from 1896 and other provisions had to be amended or repealed. § 32 was where such legislative amendments were collected.
In the current text of the law, you only see the wording: "From the day the Act enters into force, the following amendments are made to other legislation: – – –". The dashes mean that the specific amendments are not set out in full in the current consolidated text in the same way. They have already been carried out. Lovdata and other legal collections often show such amending provisions in shortened form, because the amendments have done their job.
This is common in legislation. An act can have substantive rules and technical rules. Substantive rules are the ones that tell you what you can claim, which deadlines apply, and what happens if the deadline expires. Technical rules can concern entry into force, transitional rules and amendments to other acts. § 32 is a technical rule.
If you need to assess a specific monetary claim (pengekrav) today, § 32 is almost never the place to start. You should instead look at § 2 on the length of the period, § 3 on when the period starts, the special rules in §§ 4 to 13, the rules on interruption in §§ 14 to 19, the rules on a new period in §§ 20 to 23 and the effects in §§ 24 to 27.
But § 32 tells us something important about the role of the Act. The Limitation Act replaced and tidied up older rules. It was meant to gather and modernise the rules on limitation (foreldelse). When a new main act is introduced, the legislature often has to amend many other acts so that the system fits together.
Why does the section only contain dashes?
Because the amendments have already been incorporated elsewhere. When the Act was passed, § 32 contained specific amendments to other legislation. Later legal collections often show such lists of amendments as "– – –" because the text no longer has independent practical content for everyday use.
Think of it as a receipt for a clean-up. The legislature said: "When this Act begins to apply, we are also amending these other acts." Once the amendments have been carried out, not every detail needs to appear in the consolidated text you normally read.
This does not mean that § 32 has been repealed in some mysterious way. It just means that the provision has done its job. It is historical and technical.
To an ordinary reader this may look strange. You expect a section to have content. But in legislation this is common. Particularly in older acts, you often find amending provisions with dashes, footnotes or shortened text.
So you should not look for a hidden deadline in § 32. There is no ordinary limitation rule there.
Does § 32 matter for old claims?
As a general rule, not directly. If you are assessing old claims from around 1980, § 31 is more important. § 31 says when the Act came into force and how claims that arose earlier were to be dealt with. § 32 is more about amendments to other acts.
But indirectly, § 32 can have historical significance. Because it amended other legislation, it can explain why old rules disappeared or were changed. If you are researching older limitation law, § 32 may be relevant for understanding the legislative history.
For practical claims today, § 32 is usually not relevant. It does not give you a deadline. It does not give you an additional time limit (tilleggsfrist). It does not give you a way to interrupt limitation. It only says that other legislation was amended when the Act began to apply.
If someone refers to § 32 in an ordinary debt collection (inkasso) case, loan case or compensation (erstatning) case, you should be sceptical. The relevant rules are almost always earlier in the Act.
What does "repeal or amendment of other acts" mean?
It means that the Limitation Act either removed old rules or changed them. Repeal means that a rule or act ceases to apply. Amendment means that the text of another act is adjusted.
When a new main act on limitation was passed, it was natural to repeal the old Limitation Act and adapt other rules. Otherwise, the system could have become messy. Old and new rules could contradict each other. Creditors (kreditorer) and debtors (skyldnere) could have become unsure which deadlines applied.
The legislature often uses final provisions for this kind of work. First come the ordinary rules. Then comes entry into force. Finally come amendments to other acts. The Limitation Act follows this structure.
This is why § 32 comes at the very end. It is not meant as a rule you use first. It closes the Act.
What happens if you get it wrong?
If you misunderstand § 32, you may look for answers in the wrong place. You may spend time on a provision that does not help you with your claim. In the worst case, you may overlook the actual limitation period.
If you think the Act does not apply because § 32 shows dashes, you may fail to invoke limitation or fail to interrupt the period. That can be costly. The dashes do not mean that the Act is missing. They mean that the list of amendments is historical.
If you work with legal history, you can also make the opposite mistake: overlooking that § 32 refers to important legislative amendments. In that case you should find the original text of the Act and the preparatory works.
Examples
Kari receives an old debt collection claim and looks up the Limitation Act. She scrolls all the way down and sees § 32. She wonders whether the dashes mean that the Act no longer applies. They do not. The Limitation Act still applies. The dashes in § 32 only concern the list of amendments to other acts when the Act was introduced. Kari must assess the claim under the ordinary rules of the Act, in particular § 2, § 3, § 14, § 15, § 21 and § 24. § 32 does not help her find out whether the debt collection claim is time-barred.
Thomas is writing a paper on the development of the limitation rules in Norway. He wants to understand how the 1979 Act replaced older rules. For him, § 32 may be interesting, because it shows that the Limitation Act came with amendments to other legislation. Thomas will then have to look at the legislative history, preparatory works and earlier text of the law to see exactly which rules were changed. The consolidated text with "– – –" does not tell the whole story. For ordinary users this is unnecessary. For historical or legal research it can be valuable.
Common mistakes
- Thinking the dashes mean the whole Act is incomplete
- Looking for deadline rules in § 32
- Using § 32 instead of § 31 for transitional questions
- Thinking § 32 repeals the current Limitation Act
- Overlooking that amending provisions are often technical
What should you do?
If you have a specific claim, do not start with § 32. Start by finding out what kind of claim it is. Use § 2 and § 3, or the special rule that fits. Then check whether limitation has been interrupted.
If you are wondering about the transition from the old act to the new act, read § 31. It is relevant for entry into force and old claims. § 32 only concerns amendments to other acts.
If you are working on legislative history, find the original version of the Act and see which amendments § 32 actually contained when the Act was passed.