Sun Lv division: In June 2000, an all business spread my him general rent Wang Mou, the contract that rent agrees every months 5 the rent that month pays before date. Somehow, begin from January 2002, wang Mou with hire of a variety of reason refuse payment. At the beginning of this year July, I find Wang Mou, if he continues,say refuse payment hire, my general sues a court, ask he pays hire and overdue fine. Who knows Wang Mou to say I already spent litigant effectiveness for a given period of time, reject to pay rent. Reason sends a letter excuse me, is Wang Mou's statement correct? How does the effectiveness for a given period of time of the accrual of hire, fine for delaying payment provide again?
Gentleman of horse of citizen horse gentleman: Basis " civil code general rule " the 136th regulation, pay to delaying or of refuse payment hire, litigant effectiveness for a given period of time is a year, litigant effectiveness for a given period of time from know or ought to know the right by consideration has when enroach on. Accordingly, you can be chased after to Wang Mou only denounce reached fine for delaying payment, accrual to the hire this year July in July from last year. Not was because of you to the hire July 2002 from January 2002 inside a year view, litigant effectiveness for a given period of time already passed, lost win the lawsuit authority. Of course, law does not prohibit the hire during Wang Mou pays this of one's own accord.
As to the litigant effectiveness for a given period of time of the accrual of hire, fine for delaying payment, some people think, since this does not attribute the situation that the litigant effectiveness for a given period of time that law provides is a year, the effect when lawsuit is applicable common lawsuit effectiveness for a given period of time of two years. The author thinks although accrual, fine for delaying payment is independent at the money beyond hire, but they are premise with hire. Disable because of the contract when hire, already lived the particulars of a matter such as litigant effectiveness for a given period of time and cannot continue to chase after when denouncing, the accrual of hire, fine for delaying payment also not answer exist. Because accrual, fine for delaying payment is from hire this one advocate liabilities arises, reason recalls the litigant effectiveness for a given period of time of the interest that denounces hire, fine for delaying payment, should with chase after denounce delay the litigant effectiveness for a given period of time that pays rent to agree, also be a year.