Obligations Flashcards

1
Q

What instrument govern contractual obligations?

A

Rome Convention 1980 - 1991.

Rome I Regulation 1991 onwards.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Engler v Janus Versand GmbH

A
  • unilateral obligations
  • Austrian claimed prize against German
  • in Scots law this would be unilateral obl
  • in Eng law this would be a contract
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Ferguson Shipbuilders Ltd v Voith Hydro GmbH

A
  • Scottish company claimed German company in breach
  • clause expressly provided that contract was construed/operated under Scots law
  • Held that this was explicitly clear clause = effectual
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Shamil Bank of Bahrain v Beximco

A
  • clause stating that contract was to be governed by English law subject to principles of Shariah law
  • could this amount to depecage ?
  • defendant said that since the agreements charged interest which was forbidden as Riba and contrary to the Sharia, the agreements were void
  • parties can only choose a legal law order
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Egon Oldendorff v Libera Corporation

A
  • Arbitration clause relating to English rule

- Held, by implication, referring to technical expression of particular system equated to choosing that system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin

A
  • no implied choice

- it was not clear that parties had entered contract in the first place

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Ark Therapeutics plc v True North Capital

A
  • Eng and NYC companies
  • characteristic performance was obligation to pay expenses by Eng
  • Eng law applicable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Ophthalmic Innovations Inc.

A
  • Eng and Californian companies
  • one-sided contract, Californian company agreed to indemnify
  • characteristic performance - Cali so their law applied
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc.

A
  • Eng and Californian companies
  • both claimed trademark misuse
  • Held: no one performance characteristic performance
  • if this is the case: art4(2) rule cannot apply
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Definitely Maybe (Touring) Ltd v Marek

A
  • Eng company & German based company
  • Ger company refused to pay
  • Held, contract more connected to Germany
  • Displacement rule applied - German law applicable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Kenburn Waste Management v Bergmann

A
  • Eng and German company
  • dispute in relation to Eng infringing patent rights
  • Held, contract more connected to England
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Caledonia Subsea Ltd v Micoperi SRL

A
  • Sco company made contract with Italian comp.
  • prima facie - Sco company had characteristic performance
  • Court dismissed closer connection with another country - England
  • nothing here to displace normal rule
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Caterpillar Financial Services corp. v SNC Passion

A
  • USA company due funds from French company
  • contract expressly: English law
  • French argued contract illegal art3(3)
  • Court rejected.
  • rule only relevant if all pertinent aspects of contract connected to jurisdiction other than Eng
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

McFeetridge v Stewarts & Llyods Ltd

A
  • capacity determined by applicable law

- objective assessment of applicable law if not chosen by parties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Egon Oldendorf v Libera Corporation

A
  • conflict of laws: Eng & Japan
  • must assess contract in all circumstances of the case
  • parties must show they have chosen applicable law if they want to rely on it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What instrument govern non-contractual obligations?

A
  • Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995
  • Rome II Regulation
17
Q

McElroy v McAllister

A
  • double delict rule
  • incident England, action raised in Scotland
  • both Scots and English law applied
18
Q

Boys v Chaplin

A
  • incident in Malta with English resident
  • in applying double delict - only lower head of damages applied
  • exception: where one system more closely connected it will apply
  • Eng law applied
19
Q

What is a the “double delict” rule?

A

Delictual matters governed by lexi loci delicti and lex fori.

20
Q

Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co

A
  • non-contractual public policy - art26
  • aircraft belonging to K taken to Iraq
  • transferred to Iraqi airways under decree of Iraqi gov.
  • HoL Held: decree breached public international law
  • contrary to public policy in Eng so would not be given effect to