The Limitation Convention applies to contracts for the purchase of goods between parties whose activities are established in different States, where both States Parties are parties or where the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a State Party to the contract of sale. It may also apply to the choice of parties. The High Court decided that the right to infringement was not time-barred on the ground that the applicable limitation period was from the date of delivery of the machine in October 2002 and not from the date of conclusion of the contract. In April 2002, the applicant purchased agricultural machinery financed by the second party by a lease agreement. The machine was delivered in October 2002. The applicant was then detained by Gardai on the ground that the aircraft was not fit to be carried on Irish roads. The claimant returned the machine to The First Part in October 2003 and adopted this procedure in July 2008. CommentAry The revision aims to correct the lack of coordination between the statutory limitation periods of the sales contract and the enterprise contract and has received broad support. However, the difference between the beginning of the statutory limitation period for sales contracts and business contracts is not resolved and creates a risk of legal uncertainty. The one-year limitation period is in contradiction with the limitation period referred to in Article 39(2) of the Agreement on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). In addition, the current legal limitation period is short compared to the minimum period of two years applicable to commercial relations between consumers and traders under the European Directive on the sale of consumer goods (1999/44/EC). Proposal for revision The Convention proposes, inter alia, to extend the legal limitation period.
Two amendments were submitted for consultation. In the most recent case of Murphy v. Joe O`Toole & Sons Ltd & Anor  IEHC 486, Baker J. found that the limitation period for a contract for the sale of goods was from the date of delivery of the goods and not from the date of conclusion of the contract by the parties. Introduction Durations Lack of coordination between the different limitation periods Exclusion of the statutory limitation period by agreement Initiation In legal proceedings initiated after the expiry of the limitation period, no claim is recognised or enforced (Article 25(1)). Such a procedure should not be taken into consideration unless the parties to the proceedings availing themselves of it (art. 24); However, States may make a declaration allowing the courts to take into account their fate upon the expiry of the limitation period (Article 36). Otherwise, the only exception to the rule of recognition and enforcement arises when the party asserts its right to defence or set-off of a claim invoked by the other party (Article 25(2)). The judge stated that, in accordance with section 1 of the Sale of Goods Act, the delivery of goods and the simultaneous obligation to pay for the goods is the date on which the contract or purchase agreement becomes a sale and that an infringement, if any, occurred during performance or delivery, when the contract was not performed, but who was executed. The expiry of the limitation period means that no related right may be recognized or invoked; However, this claim may, under certain conditions, be used as compensation for set-off (Article 25). According to the second draft, the limitation period is extended to five years without distinction between movable and immovable property and would correspond to the existing period for immovable property.
. . .