Abstract
In any case which involves a foreign element it may prove necessary to decide which system of law is to be applied, either to the case as a whole or to a particular issue or issues. Such foreign elements may be constituted by the central administration or headquarters of each of the parties being located in different countries or by the fact that the site is located in a country different from the home country of either of the parties. The identification of the appropriate law may be viewed as involving a three-stage process: (1) characterisation or classification of the relevant issue; (2) selection of the rule of conflict of laws which lays down a connecting factor for that issue; and (3) identification of the system of law which is tied by that connecting factor to that issue.1 In practise, in particular at pre-contract stage, the approach should be a bit more sophisticated, as such: Identification of the forum (which is either stipulated or not) Identification of the applicable set of conflict of laws rules (determined by the seat of the forum) Characterisation or classification of the relevant issue (contract issue, pre-contract issue, tort issue, power of attorney issue, formal requirement issue, etc.) Selection of the rule of conflict of laws which lays down a connecting factor for that issue Identification of the system of law which is tied by that connecting factor to that issue
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Macmillan Inc v. Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc [1996] 1 WLR 387, 391–2 per Staughton LJ; Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG v. Five Star Trading LLC (“The Mount I”) [2001] QB 825 at 840B to 841B.
- 2.
BAG [2003] IPRax 258, p.261.
- 3.
BVerfG, decision from 13 June 2006; file no. 1 BvR 1160/03.
- 4.
BVerfG, decision from 13 June 2006; file no. 1 BvR 1160/03.
- 5.
Jemco, Inc v. United Parcel Service, Inc, 400 So.2d 499 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 466 (Fla.1982); Lincoln P. Tang-How, d/b/a Tang How Brothers, General Contractors v. Edward J. Gerrits, Inc and others 961 F.2d 174.
- 6.
Wood Bros. Homes, Inc v. Walker Adjustment Bureau 198 Colo 444, 601 P.2d 1369 (1979).
- 7.
(1995) 1 AC 190.
- 8.
Cour de Cassation, Première chambre civile, 11 mai 1999.
- 9.
Westdeutsche Bank v. Islington L.B.C. [1996] AC 669, 710E.
- 10.
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32.
- 11.
Air Foyle Ltd & Anor v. Center Capital Ltd [2002] EWHC 2535 (Comm) (03 December 2002).
References
Bunni NG (2005) FIDIC forms of contract, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford
Glavinis P (1993) Le contrat international de construction. GLN Joly Editions, Paris
Kropholler J (2005) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 8th edn. Recht und Wirtschaft, Heidelberg
Molineaux C (1997) Moving toward a Lex Mercatoria - A Lex Constructionis. J Int Arb 14:55
North P, Fawcett JJ (2005) Cheshire and North’s private international law, 13th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rémy-Corlay P (2001) Tribunal de Grande Instance Poitiers, 22.12.1999. Rev Crit Dr Intern Priv 670
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jaeger, AV., Hök, GS. (2009). Conflict of Laws. In: FIDIC - A Guide for Practitioners. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02100-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02100-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02099-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02100-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)