Statute of limitation

Bassim

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bosnia Herzegovina
Current Location
Sweden
Is my sentence grammatically correct? I am not sure if my sentence sounds natural.

Peter was in debt of many thousands pounds to a company, but because of statute of limitation, he is no longer liable to pay it back.
 

Roman55

Key Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Italy
Current Location
France
Peter was in debt for many thousands of pounds to a company, but because of the statute of limitations, he is no longer liable for it.
 

Bassim

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bosnia Herzegovina
Current Location
Sweden
GoesStation,

That was my meaning in the original sentence. Peter won't pay it back.
 

GoesStation

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
The problem is that liable has two meanings. Mentioning the statute of limitations suggests you're thinking of the sense of legal liability; of being legally required to do something. The phrase liable to is an expression meaning "likely to", regardless of legal requirements.

You can avoid the issue by saying he is no longer liable for the debt.
 

probus

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
That means he probably won't pay it back.

The problem here is that in collquial usage, liable has come to be synonymous with likely. Thus: he probably will not repay.

But strictly speaking, in legal language, he is not liable to repay means he cannot be legally forced to repay.
 
Top