The court also rejected Seniah`s argument that Buckingham`s general counsel, who signed the agreement, was acting as Keating`s agent and had the power to attach him under the terms of the agreement. Given that there was nothing in the minutes to establish that general counsel represented Keating with respect to the preliminary hearings or the toll agreement, and keating and the General Counsel challenged it, the Tribunal found that the General Counsel was not acting as Keating`s agent in the conclusion of the toll agreement. Regardless of the facts or circumstances, the lessons learned from the Seniah case must be taken into account when negotiating and developing toll agreements and in attempting to enforce or avoid them in court. The District Court`s decision, which issued a summary judgment for the defense, was rendered on (1) the choice of law, (2) the express conditions of the toll agreement and (3) the application of the California discovery and doctrinal concealment rule. The statute of limitations is not intended to restrict or affect a defence other than a prescription defence that [The Defendant] has, have or would have had in the absence of that agreement. Nor does this agreement renounce a defence against the statute of limitations that could have been invoked before the date of the toll period. When the toll period expires, [defenders] will have all the defences, as they did on the first day of the toll period. On this issue, the Court of Appeal found that a toll agreement is a contract and that the court`s mission is to implement the intention of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract. The clear language of the agreement indicated that the toll agreement had been reached between Buckingham and Seniah. Keating was not mentioned in the agreement and was not signed, so the agreement did not extend to the claims against it. It turned out that the equipment manufacturer`s lawyers had sent the applicants` lawyer a toll agreement for the cases in which the device was concerned, according to which the toll period would be triggered by lawyers without notification of the applicants.