1 A third issue that may arise is the question of a court’s jurisdiction. An examination of the considerations made by courts, when determining whether they have jurisdiction to hear a matter, is beyond the scope of this work.
2 See eg the 1,458 page treatise by Fawcett/Harris/Bridge devoted purely to the international sale of goods in the conflict of laws.
3 Eng Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co  AC 50 (HL) at 65.
4 Disputes resolved by arbitration where the tribunal is acting as amiable compositeur may be a rare exception. For this issue see para 4.32.
5 EU, Afg, Alg, Are, Che, Chl, Chn, Cri, Cub, Egy, Esp, Gtm, Irn, Irq, Jor, Jpn, Lby, Mex, Per, Phl, Prt, Qat, Syr, Tha, Tur, Twn, Yem.
8 See eg Hkg Art 17(1) Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance (1989): ‘Where the proper law of a contract is the law of Hong Kong only by choice of the parties (and apart from that choice would be the law of a jurisdiction other than Hong Kong) sections 7 to 12 do not operate as part of the proper law.’ See also Sgp s 27(1) Unfair Contract Terms Act (1993); Eng s 27(1) Unfair Contracts Act (1977); Sco s 27(1) Unfair Contracts Act (1977); Wal s 27(1) Unfair Contracts Act (1977).
9 EU Art 3 Rome I Regulation; Common Law (UK) Dicey/Morris paras 32-062–064; Afg Art 27 CC; Are Art 19(1) CC; Arm Art 1284 CC; Blr Arts 1093, 1124 CC; Che Art 116 PIL; Chl Art 113(2) Com C, Art 1545 CC, Decree Law no 2349 of 13 October 1978 (freedom derived from parties’ contractual autonomy as supported by Yrarrazaval et al, p 315); Chn Art 126 PRC CL; Cri Art 18 CC; Cub Art 7 CC; Dza Art 18 CC; Egy Art 19(1) CC, Art 39(1) Arbitration Law; Esp Art 10(5) (with connection with the transaction) CC; Gtm Art 31 Law of J O; Irn Art 968 CC, Art 27(1) Arbitration Law; Irq 25(1) CC; Isr s 24 (General Part) CL; Jor Art 20(1) CC, Art 36(a) Arbitration Law; Jpn Art 7(1) General Rules of Application of Laws (known as Horei Law) Act; Kaz Art 1112 CC; Ken Khanna/Sejpal, p 125; Kgz Art 1198 CC; Kwt Art 59 Law no 5 of 1961 regulating the legal relationships with a foreign element; Lby Art 19(1) CC; Ltu Art 1.37 CC, Tamasauskaite/Petrauskas, p 412; Mda Art 1611 CC; Mex Art 13(V) CC; Nga Fagbohunlu/Ganiyu, p 133; Omn s 64 Civil Procedural Law; Per Arts 2095, 2096 CC; Phl Art 1306 CC; Prt Art 41 (legitime choice) CC; Qat Art 27 CC; Rus Arts 1186, 1210 CC; Syr Art 20(1) CC; Tha Art 13 of Conflict of Laws B E 2481 (1939); Tun Art 62 Private International Law of 1998; Tur Art 24 PIL; Twn Art 6 Governing the Application of Law to Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements Act; Ukr Okhendovskii/Zadorozhij, p 446; Uzb Art 1189 CC; Ven Art 29 PIL, Art 116 Com C; Yem Art 29 CC; Zaf Walker, p 157.
10 Bra Art 8 Introductory Law; see also Albornoz: the author relies on the answers to ‘Questionnaire on International contracts’ produced for the preparatory meeting (CIDIP V) for the Inter-American convention on the law applicable to international contracts. The 1942 Introductory Law was enacted for the Civil Code of 1916. Although a New Civil Code has been in force since 2002, the 1942 Introductory Law remained as the rule of interpretation and conflict of laws of the New Civil Code.
12 Ury Art 2403 CC (Appendix of the Civil Code).
14 Bra Art 2 Arb Law; Par Art 32 Arb Law.
15 EU Art 3 Rome Convention.
16 EU Art 3 Rome I Convention.
17 Art 2 Hague Convention 1955.
18 See eg Mex Art 7 of the Mexico Convention (currently only in force between Mex and Ven); see also Twn Art 48 Law on the Relationship Between the People in the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area; similarly Chn Regulation on the Problems of Jurisdiction for Foreign-Related Civil and Commercial Litigation; for discussion see Chi Chung, 22(3) St John’s J L Comm (2008), 559.
19 See paras 4.33 et seq.
20 Treaty on the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa (JO OHADA, no 4 of 1 November 1997).
21 See eg Lohoues-Oble, Uniform L Rev (2008), 319.
22 See paras 15.01 et seq.
23 See Are Art 27 CC; Yem Art 35 CC.
24 For the Sub-Saharan African jurisdictions, see Penda Matipé, p 25; Afg Art 35 CC; Alg Art 24 CC; Are Art 22 CC; Bhr Art 3(b) CC; Cri Art 18 CC; Egy Art 28 CC; Esp Art 12(3) CC; Gtm Art 31 JOL; Irq 32 CC; Jor Art 29 CC; Kwt Art 73 Law no 5 of 1961 Regulating the Legal Relationships with a Foreign Element; Lby Art 28 CC; Mex Art 15(2) CC; Phl Art 1306 CC; Qat Art 38 CC; Syr Art 30 CC; Ven Art 8 PIL; Yem Arts 35 and 975 CC.
25 Vita Foods Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co  AC 277 (PC).
26 The case originated in Can.
27 Vita Foods Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co  AC 277 (PC) p 290. See also Compagnie d’Armement Maritime SA v Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation SA  3 All ER 71 (HL).
28 See eg Aus Augustus v Permanent Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 245 (HC); Hkg Shenzhen Development Bank Co Ltd v New Century Int’l (Holdings) Ltd and Another  HKCU 917 (HC); Ind Mulla, Contracts, vol I, p 21.
31 See eg Esp Art 10(5) CC (with connection with the transaction); Prt Art 41 CC.
34 USA Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 9 July 1980, US Ct App (3rd Cir), 626 F 2d 280, 284; Dresser Industries, Inc, Waukesha Engine Div v Gradall Co, 15 December 1988, US Dist Ct (ED Wi), 702 F Supp 726, 731, Barden v Hurd Millwork Company, Inc, 28 March 2008, US Dist Ct (ED Wi), 249 F R D 316, 320, Mahoney v Ronnie’s Road Service, 2 April 1996, NC Ct App, 122 N C App 150, 154, 468 S E 2d 279, 281, Mostek Corp v Chemetron Corp, 16 September 1982, Tex Ct App (5th Dist), 642 SW 2d 20, 23.
35 USA (NY) Gen Oblig Law § 5-1401; (Cal) § 1646.5 CC; (Il) 735 Ill Comp Stat Ann 105/5-5 have a similar statute. Each of these states requires that a minimum of 250,000 USD be in dispute, and these statutes take precedence over the §1-105 UCC as adopted by the states. USA (De), Del Code Ann 6 § 2708 requires that 100,000 USD be in dispute. For a survey of various states’ choice-of-law statutes see also Graves, 36 Seton Hall L Rev (2005), 59.
36 The US Virgin Islands—though not a state—differ in that the text of § 1-301 UCC 2003 has been enacted.
38 Arg Boggiano, vol II, p 176; Che Art 1 PIL; BaslerKommIPRG/Amstutz/Vogt/Wang, Art 116, para 6, Vischer/L Huber/Oser, paras 71 et seq. Related see Irn Art 968 CC points to the laws of the place of the performance of the transaction, and not the place of conclusion of the contract, except in cases where the parties to the contract are both foreign nationals and have explicitly or impliedly declared the transaction to be subject to the laws of another country. Hence, freedom of choice, be it express or implied, can only be exercised when the parties to the contract are both of foreign nationalities. See also Basedow, 75 RabelsZ (2011), 36.
39 EU Art 6 Rome I Regulation; Aus Consumer Law s 64; Che Art 120 PIL; Chn Art 101(18) Model Law on Chinese Private International Law; Jpn Art 11(1) Horei Law; Tur Art 26 PIL.
40 See eg Art 11 Mexico Convention, which provides that the provisions of the law of the forum shall necessarily be applied when they are mandatory.
41 But see Che Art 15(2) PIL.
42 In the positive sense Che Arts 18, 19 PIL; Ltu Art 1.11 CC. For detailed consideration of this point in numerous jurisdictions including Aus, Che, Deu, Eng, Nld, USA see Nygh, pp 217 et seq. See also Nga Tawa Petroleum Products v Owners of MV Se Winner, Nigeria Law Report, vol II, NSC, 25 as cited in Penda Matipé, p 24.
43 Art 9(1) Rome I Regulation.
45 EU Art 3(1) Rome I Regulation; Latin America Art 7 Mexico Convention; Common Law (Eng) Vita Food Productions Inc v Unus Shipping Co  AC 277; Afg Art 27 CC; Alg Art 18 CC; Are Art 19(1) CC; Aus Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418; Che Vischer/L Huber/Oser, paras 171 et seq; Egy Art 19(1) CC; Art 39(1) Arbitration Law; Hkg York Airconditioning & Refrigeration Inc v Lam Kwai Hung T/A North Sea A/C Elect Eng Co  HKC 287; Irn Art 968 CC, Art 27(1) Arbitration Law; Irq 25(1) CC; Jor Art 20(1) CC, Art 36(a) Arbitration Law; Kwt Art 59 Law no 5 of 1961 Regulating the Legal Relationships with a Foreign Element; Lby Art 19(1) CC; Qat Art 27 CC; Syr Art 20(1) CC; Tha Art 13 Conflict of Laws; Tun Art 62 Private International Law of 1998; Tur Art 26 PIL; Yem Art 29 CC. However some jurisdictions do not appear to recognize this possibility—see for instance Alg Art 18 CC; Hafez, p 23.
46 Chn Arts 2, 4(2) PRC Sup Ct Jud Int on Application of Law.
47 EU Art 3(1) sentence 2 Rome I Regulation; Che Art 116(2) PIL.
49 Arabic/Middle East Hafez, p 23; EU MünchKommBGB/Martiny, Art 3 Rom I, paras 48 et seq; Che BaslerKommIPRG/Amstutz/Vogt/Wang, Art 116, para 40. But see Mys Globus Shipping & Trading Co (Pte) Ltd v Taiping Textiles Bhd  2 MLJ 154 (FC): the following clause was treated as a jurisdiction clause rather than a choice-of-law clause: ‘Any dispute arising under the Bill of Lading shall be decided in the country where the carrier has its principal place of business and the law of such country will apply.’ Similarly see Latin America Art 7 Mexico Convention which specifically states that the election of a certain court by the parties does not necessarily entail election of the applicable law, Muñoz, p 28.
52 Arabic/Middle East Hafez, p 23; EU MünchKommBGB/Martiny, Art 3, Rom I, para 61, with reference to KG Berlin, 21 February 2008, NJW-RR (2009), 195 (regarding former German law of the same content); Aus Nygh/Davies, para 19.4; Che BaslerKommIPRG/Amstutz/Vogt/Wang, Art 116, para 42; Egy Salama, Mofawadat Al Aqud Al Dawlia, pp 193–6; Eng Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kwt Insurance Co  1 AC 50 (HL); Sau Salama, Mofawadat Al Aqud Al Dawlia, pp 193–6.
57 Choice-of-law clauses appearing in standard terms and conditions, and referring generically to the assignee’s place of business may also be referred to as floating choice-of-law clauses. Those are not the type considered in this work.
63 See eg Art 3(2) Rome I Regulation; see also discussion in Nygh, pp 100–3 with regard to Rome Convention.