It is true that the Michigan courts have decided that the parties can, by contract, reduce the limitation period as long as the shortened time frame is reasonable. Herweyer, supra at 20, 564 N.W.2d 857. To determine whether the reduced time limit is appropriate, the courts consider whether „(1) the plaintiff has sufficient opportunity to investigate and bring an action, (2) the time frame is not short enough to have the right of appeal quashed, and (3) the remedy is not prescribed until the loss or damage can be determined.“ However, in these earlier cases, the focus has been on whether the parties have reduced the limitation period to an excessively long period, whereas in this case it is an extension of the statute of limitations, which has a particular impact on the policy against the assessment of „obsolete“ claims. However, Herweyer`s language remains instructive as to whether this agreement is contrary to public policy: the conclusion of a toll agreement does not raise a dispute between the parties regarding the appropriate „end date“ of certain rights and rights. You also do not risk an adverse decision by the court. Instead, the parties can focus on the benefits (or lack thereof) of possible legal action and work toward a possible solution. In some professional sports leagues, such as. B in the National Hockey League, the toll of a player`s contract to allow for a break or delay in the start of a contract may be made under certain conditions when a player signs his first contract in the NHL. This toll is defined as an „entry-level slide“ that can occur for up to two seasons. This is from Schedule 16.4 of the current NHL collective bargaining agreement.
 There are many reasons why a toll agreement could be benefited. As a general rule, toll agreements are used to give parties additional time to assess the validity and legitimacy of claims and damages, without having to file an appeal within the required time frame. Other common reasons are: Second, the AO applies only to national courts. Some might be tempted to read the order widely and consider that the toll applies to „procedure opening times“ for appeals. We caution against this approach. In particular, the AO refers to the filing of briefs under MCR 2.110 and requests for prior responses to mcr 2.116. According to MCR 2.110 (A), submissions are limited to complaints, crossclaims, counter-claims, third-party complaints, responses to claims and responses to responses. Although lawyers sometimes call everything we enter a plea, in reality, anything not mentioned in MCR 2.110 (A) is a „document“ (or what is known as „paper“ in the Federal Court).