Crunch Time Studying Flashcards
What do we want from COL Rules? (6 things)
- Certainty
- Uniformity
- Predictability
- East of Application
- Avoidance of Forum Shopping
- Good, fair, just, equitable results
When determining whether there is a contract at all
Under its Conflict of Law rules, in determining the place of contracting, the forum ascertains the place in which, under the general law of Contracts, the principal event necessary to make a contract occurs. Not until then, does the forum refer to the law of such state to ascertain if, under the law, there is a contract
Grant v. McAuliffe (4 things)
- Prior precedent is not binding if it wasn’t a COL case.
- survival statutes are procedural for conflict of laws purposes.
- They ruled this way, even tho the Restatement said otherwise–basically, the Restatement is not law.
- Impetus for Currie’s interest analysis
Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, Inc. (3 things)
Rule. Courts may refuse to enforce the law of another jurisdiction when it is “so completely contrary to” the jurisdiction’s public policy.
Holding in Kilberg is recognized as having nothing to do with public policy, but rather that wrongful death damage ceilings are procedural – most jurisdictions following Kilberg for its procedural holding. NOTE: This holding is restricted to damage ceilings. All other cases, damage ceilings = substantive
Davenport v. Webb – declined to extend
Relying on previous precedent that are not COL cases (3 things)
- “Fallacy of the transplanted category.” - Professor Cook
- McAuliffe, don’t use prior, non-COL cases as precedent
- Levy, use prior precedent, even if not COL case (Pleading, evidence, and practice = procedural).
In contracts under 2d restatement, matters of validity
Must apply, unless the chosen law does not bear a SUBSTANTIAL relationship to the contract, or application of the chosen law would contrary to the FUNDAMENTAL policy of a state which has a MATERIALLY GREATER interest than the chosen state AND which would be the law chosen under § 188 IN THE ABSENCE of a effective choice of law.
In the absence of a contrary indication of intention, the reference is to the local law of the state of the chosen law.
Auten v. Auten (3 interpretations, plus)
Applies to contracts.
Breaks from the traditional rules.
Under the “center of gravity” approach, the court will apply the law of the place having the most interest in the case.
Did not use NY law, because NY as place of contracting was “entirely fortuitous.”
Has been interpreted three different ways:
(1) Grouping of contacts,
(2) Center of Gravity,
(3) Most Significant Relationship.
Reese Article
- He does like a rule based system, but he gave us a non-rule based system
- Don’t reduce choice of law to rules until you are sure what you want in those rules (Leflar – don’t codify until you know for sure what you want to codify)
- He said that bad rules are worse than no rules at all.
- His goal – to give us a vague approach that judges could do whatever they wanted to do in any case
a. He sees it as the virtue of this system
b. Purported virtue of 2nd restatement – flexibility
i. over time, rules will develop from the patterns of values we see emanating from the courts
ii. he said to go with the approach until we are sure what the rules are to look like
There are three steps in interest analysis:
1 Isolate the issue
- Identify the policies/interests/purposes (look at legislative history)
- Examine your interests/contacts (where are the parties from?)
§ 196
in a contract for the rendition of services, use the law of the place where the services are to be rendered, unless § 6 says there is another jurisdiction with a more significant relationship.
in a contract for the rendition of services, use the law of the place where the services are to be rendered, unless § 6 says there is another jurisdiction with a more significant relationship. (what provision is this?)
§ 196
Siegelman v. Cunard White Star Ltd. (contact case) (4 things)
Rule. Contract parties may choose the law that governs the validity of their contract where the chosen law bears some relation to the contract and is selected for bona fide reasons.
Bona fide: no fraud, duress, misrepresentation
Creates the two part test for validity of a contract (interpretation, validity)
NOTE: There can be cases where the interpretation is so key to what the K is about that it goes directly to the validity of the K (as well as to interpretation).
Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp. (WA 1976)
This is more if Brilmeyer’s kind of case. This is the unprovided for case. It doesn’t use the “Carved out exception” like Wood Bros. Instead, they looked at the purposes of the relevant rules, deciding that WA law was trying to deter – WA has def. deterring interest; the jurisdiction in which the interest can actually be achieved should win.
§ 145 (Second Restatement)
The General Principle in Tort Cases
- The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in § 6.
- Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:
a. The place where the injury occurred
b. The place where the conduct causing the injury occurred
c. The domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
d. The place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is center. - These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance re: the particular issues
The General Principle in Tort Cases
- The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in § 6.
- Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:
a. The place where the injury occurred
b. The place where the conduct causing the injury occurred
c. The domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
d. The place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is center. - These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance re: the particular issues
§ 145 (Second Restatement)
