TACIT Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Progress or Stagnation in the Common- Law Jurisdictions?
The English common-law rules of private international law have, to a large extent, been replaced by European conflicts-law regulations in the United Kingdom (UK). Nevertheless, English common law remains highly influential in numerous jurisdictions. In many legal systems, the private-international-l...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Obiter 2023-06, Vol.44 (2), p.271 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 271 |
container_title | Obiter |
container_volume | 44 |
creator | Bouwers, Garth J |
description | The English common-law rules of private international law have, to a large extent, been replaced by European conflicts-law regulations in the United Kingdom (UK). Nevertheless, English common law remains highly influential in numerous jurisdictions. In many legal systems, the private-international-law rules are based fundamentally on the common-law rules developed by English courts. This is problematic since the common-law rules of private international law may be outdated. This article examines the English common-law choice-of-law rules – more specifically, the rules and principles concerning the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts. The traditional common-law position is compared to selected common-law jurisdictions – namely, Australia, Canada, India, Israel and New Zealand. Finally, the article highlights the progress (or lack thereof) in the aforementioned common-law jurisdictions in addressing the issues related to the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.10520/ejc-obiter_v44_n2_a2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A776146915</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A776146915</galeid><sourcerecordid>A776146915</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-gale_infotracacademiconefile_A7761469153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVjUFOwzAQRb0AqRX0CJXmAim2G6eBDaoiEK1YIJF9ZNxJOlXikWwD1ycJXADN4o_-n_dHiLWSGyWNlnd4cRl_UMLQfOV543Vj9ZVYqqLUmSnNdiFWMV6klLo0RZmbpYj1vjrUUJ2ZHAK38Gq_gTwc_FjibSL2toeKhwGDo3n1KViX4gO8Be4Cxggc4D3Z7vd8otMZZ4Z9NhcePwPFE7kpj4-34rq1fcTVn96IzfNTXb1kne2xId_y9GGcEw7k2GNLo7_f7QqVF_fKbP8N_ACW_1wO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>TACIT Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Progress or Stagnation in the Common- Law Jurisdictions?</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><creator>Bouwers, Garth J</creator><creatorcontrib>Bouwers, Garth J</creatorcontrib><description>The English common-law rules of private international law have, to a large extent, been replaced by European conflicts-law regulations in the United Kingdom (UK). Nevertheless, English common law remains highly influential in numerous jurisdictions. In many legal systems, the private-international-law rules are based fundamentally on the common-law rules developed by English courts. This is problematic since the common-law rules of private international law may be outdated. This article examines the English common-law choice-of-law rules – more specifically, the rules and principles concerning the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts. The traditional common-law position is compared to selected common-law jurisdictions – namely, Australia, Canada, India, Israel and New Zealand. Finally, the article highlights the progress (or lack thereof) in the aforementioned common-law jurisdictions in addressing the issues related to the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1682-5853</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.10520/ejc-obiter_v44_n2_a2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Sabinet Online</publisher><subject>Banking industry ; Commercial law ; Contracts ; Electric utilities ; International law ; Jurisdiction ; Machinery industry</subject><ispartof>Obiter, 2023-06, Vol.44 (2), p.271</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Sabinet Online</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bouwers, Garth J</creatorcontrib><title>TACIT Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Progress or Stagnation in the Common- Law Jurisdictions?</title><title>Obiter</title><description>The English common-law rules of private international law have, to a large extent, been replaced by European conflicts-law regulations in the United Kingdom (UK). Nevertheless, English common law remains highly influential in numerous jurisdictions. In many legal systems, the private-international-law rules are based fundamentally on the common-law rules developed by English courts. This is problematic since the common-law rules of private international law may be outdated. This article examines the English common-law choice-of-law rules – more specifically, the rules and principles concerning the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts. The traditional common-law position is compared to selected common-law jurisdictions – namely, Australia, Canada, India, Israel and New Zealand. Finally, the article highlights the progress (or lack thereof) in the aforementioned common-law jurisdictions in addressing the issues related to the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts.</description><subject>Banking industry</subject><subject>Commercial law</subject><subject>Contracts</subject><subject>Electric utilities</subject><subject>International law</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Machinery industry</subject><issn>1682-5853</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNqVjUFOwzAQRb0AqRX0CJXmAim2G6eBDaoiEK1YIJF9ZNxJOlXikWwD1ycJXADN4o_-n_dHiLWSGyWNlnd4cRl_UMLQfOV543Vj9ZVYqqLUmSnNdiFWMV6klLo0RZmbpYj1vjrUUJ2ZHAK38Gq_gTwc_FjibSL2toeKhwGDo3n1KViX4gO8Be4Cxggc4D3Z7vd8otMZZ4Z9NhcePwPFE7kpj4-34rq1fcTVn96IzfNTXb1kne2xId_y9GGcEw7k2GNLo7_f7QqVF_fKbP8N_ACW_1wO</recordid><startdate>20230601</startdate><enddate>20230601</enddate><creator>Bouwers, Garth J</creator><general>Sabinet Online</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20230601</creationdate><title>TACIT Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Progress or Stagnation in the Common- Law Jurisdictions?</title><author>Bouwers, Garth J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-gale_infotracacademiconefile_A7761469153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Banking industry</topic><topic>Commercial law</topic><topic>Contracts</topic><topic>Electric utilities</topic><topic>International law</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Machinery industry</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bouwers, Garth J</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Obiter</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bouwers, Garth J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>TACIT Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Progress or Stagnation in the Common- Law Jurisdictions?</atitle><jtitle>Obiter</jtitle><date>2023-06-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>271</spage><pages>271-</pages><issn>1682-5853</issn><abstract>The English common-law rules of private international law have, to a large extent, been replaced by European conflicts-law regulations in the United Kingdom (UK). Nevertheless, English common law remains highly influential in numerous jurisdictions. In many legal systems, the private-international-law rules are based fundamentally on the common-law rules developed by English courts. This is problematic since the common-law rules of private international law may be outdated. This article examines the English common-law choice-of-law rules – more specifically, the rules and principles concerning the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts. The traditional common-law position is compared to selected common-law jurisdictions – namely, Australia, Canada, India, Israel and New Zealand. Finally, the article highlights the progress (or lack thereof) in the aforementioned common-law jurisdictions in addressing the issues related to the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts.</abstract><pub>Sabinet Online</pub><doi>10.10520/ejc-obiter_v44_n2_a2</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1682-5853 |
ispartof | Obiter, 2023-06, Vol.44 (2), p.271 |
issn | 1682-5853 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A776146915 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
subjects | Banking industry Commercial law Contracts Electric utilities International law Jurisdiction Machinery industry |
title | TACIT Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Progress or Stagnation in the Common- Law Jurisdictions? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T00%3A30%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=TACIT%20Choice%20of%20Law%20in%20International%20Commercial%20Contracts:%20Progress%20or%20Stagnation%20in%20the%20Common-%20Law%20Jurisdictions?&rft.jtitle=Obiter&rft.au=Bouwers,%20Garth%20J&rft.date=2023-06-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=271&rft.pages=271-&rft.issn=1682-5853&rft_id=info:doi/10.10520/ejc-obiter_v44_n2_a2&rft_dat=%3Cgale%3EA776146915%3C/gale%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A776146915&rfr_iscdi=true |