Flashcards in Obligations Deck (20):
What instrument govern contractual obligations?
Rome Convention 1980 - 1991.
Rome I Regulation 1991 onwards.
Engler v Janus Versand GmbH
- unilateral obligations
- Austrian claimed prize against German
- in Scots law this would be unilateral obl
- in Eng law this would be a contract
Ferguson Shipbuilders Ltd v Voith Hydro GmbH
- 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
Shamil Bank of Bahrain v Beximco
- 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
Egon Oldendorff v Libera Corporation
- Arbitration clause relating to English rule
- Held, by implication, referring to technical expression of particular system equated to choosing that system
Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin
- no implied choice
- it was not clear that parties had entered contract in the first place
Ark Therapeutics plc v True North Capital
- Eng and NYC companies
- characteristic performance was obligation to pay expenses by Eng
- Eng law applicable
Ophthalmic Innovations Inc.
- Eng and Californian companies
- one-sided contract, Californian company agreed to indemnify
- characteristic performance - Cali so their law applied
Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc.
- Eng and Californian companies
- both claimed trademark misuse
- Held: no one performance characteristic performance
- if this is the case: art4(2) rule cannot apply
Definitely Maybe (Touring) Ltd v Marek
- Eng company & German based company
- Ger company refused to pay
- Held, contract more connected to Germany
- Displacement rule applied - German law applicable
Kenburn Waste Management v Bergmann
- Eng and German company
- dispute in relation to Eng infringing patent rights
- Held, contract more connected to England
Caledonia Subsea Ltd v Micoperi SRL
- 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
Caterpillar Financial Services corp. v SNC Passion
- 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
McFeetridge v Stewarts & Llyods Ltd
- capacity determined by applicable law
- objective assessment of applicable law if not chosen by parties
Egon Oldendorf v Libera Corporation
- 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
What instrument govern non-contractual obligations?
- Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995
- Rome II Regulation
McElroy v McAllister
- double delict rule
- incident England, action raised in Scotland
- both Scots and English law applied
Boys v Chaplin
- 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
What is a the "double delict" rule?
Delictual matters governed by lexi loci delicti and lex fori.