Obligations Flashcards Preview

International Private Law > Obligations > Flashcards

Flashcards in Obligations Deck (20):
1

What instrument govern contractual obligations?

Rome Convention 1980 - 1991.
Rome I Regulation 1991 onwards.

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin

- no implied choice
- it was not clear that parties had entered contract in the first place

7

Ark Therapeutics plc v True North Capital

- Eng and NYC companies
- characteristic performance was obligation to pay expenses by Eng
- Eng law applicable

8

Ophthalmic Innovations Inc.

- Eng and Californian companies
- one-sided contract, Californian company agreed to indemnify
- characteristic performance - Cali so their law applied

9

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

10

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

11

Kenburn Waste Management v Bergmann

- Eng and German company
- dispute in relation to Eng infringing patent rights
- Held, contract more connected to England

12

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

13

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

14

McFeetridge v Stewarts & Llyods Ltd

- capacity determined by applicable law
- objective assessment of applicable law if not chosen by parties

15

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

16

What instrument govern non-contractual obligations?

- Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995
- Rome II Regulation

17

McElroy v McAllister

- double delict rule
- incident England, action raised in Scotland
- both Scots and English law applied

18

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

19

What is a the "double delict" rule?

Delictual matters governed by lexi loci delicti and lex fori.

20

Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co

- 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