|
From my own limited understanding of civil suit, based on personal experience...
I believe there exists some sort of clause regarding "past precidence." If something happened and no action was taken, and the violation continues to happen with no action taken, then past precidence demonstrates a lack of concern about the violation. And therefore the statute of limitations would apply to the original date of the violation and not to the current violation thereof.
In english:
If I break a contract, and the one who owns the contract doesn't bring me to court over it, and I continue to break it on a regular basis for years and years, the court's gonna say "Well you should've filed within 3 years of the date you KNEW it was violated in the first place." NOT doing anything about it tells the judge that you didn't think it was important enough to pursue, and the judge is gonna tell you tough noogies.
It's kinda like the whole squatter's rights issue. If you move into an abandoned house and the owner of the house knows you're there, and doesn't make any attempt to kick you out, eventually you earn the right to live there and he no longer has the option of evicting you. Eminent domain stuff, though it's a lot more complex than that.
The same goes for property lines and fences. If I build a fence 3 inches into your lawn, and you are aware that it's on your lawn, and don't make me change the location, then eventually you lose the right to take legal action.
This applies only to situations in which the "victim" is aware of the violation. The Diku people have known about this situation for years, and as far as I know they have not filed any claim against Medievia. The american court system would, from my personal experience and not from any actual legal expertise, tell the Diku folks "Oh well, you should've filed years ago when you first realized you were being victimized."
Again - I reiterate. I have no actual legal background or court case citation other than my own to go by on this issue.
|