In early 2016 a shipment of medical products left Spain for South Africa.  It arrived ruined, having been stored at the wrong temperature.  The shipper, a Spanish laboratory, made demands for payment, there was extensive back-and-forth with the carrier that ultimately went nowhere, and the lab filed suit in Spain in March 2017.  The carrier argued the suit was time-barred because it was filed more than a year after discovery of the injury.  The trial court said no, the settlement discussions had tolled the limitation, and ruled for the lab.

The appeals court reversed, holding the discussions did not toll the limitation and the suit was therefore barred.  The Spanish Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court.  It started by looking at the lab's argument that the Spanish Maritime Navigation Act should control, and its one-year limitation would be tolled by the discussions.  The Supreme Court said that, yes, the Navigation Act says that, but it also says it is subject to existing treaties, including expressly the Hague-Visby Rules, and the vast majority of courts interpreting the Rules had held there was no tolling.  You snooze, you lose.

But what if one side is not negotiating in good faith and instead is pulling a Gandalf and just stalling until you turn to stone?  The Supreme Court noted a party can always file a formal negotiation proceeding pursuant to Spanish statute, and that would satisfy the limitation because it would be a filing within a year (Most countries these days have some sort of court-attached or court-adjacent alternative dispute resolution.  These lighten the load on courts while letting the courts know there is a dispute out there that may end up in their laps.  They also have set rules that keep things honest and moving.).  But if you're just out there winging it, that ain't gonna be good enough.

So negotiate, yes, but keep an eye on the clock.  And cover your tail feathers.