VII The Boundaries of the Proposed Argument

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geva Benjamin ◽  
Peari Sagi
Keyword(s):  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Broad Scope ◽  
Limitation Periods ◽  
Organizing Principles

This chapter examines the scope and limits of the proposed extension of the party autonomy and most significant relationship (MSR) principles to negotiable instruments. First, it challenges the validation principle, being an apparent major limitation to the proposed broad scope argument. Second, the chapter discusses the relevance of the argument to such issues as the proprietary aspects of the instruments, remedies and limitation periods, and the holder's duties. Third, it elaborates on the relevance of the proposed argument beyond bills of exchange, promissory notes, and cheques. Specifically, the chapter explores whether the suggestions could be extended and applied to choice-of-law rules in areas where the notion of negotiability has traditionally played a role: that is, investment securities and documents of title. Fourth, the chapter sets a limit to the scope of the argument and explains in which cases the organizing principles of party autonomy and MSR shall not be applied.

VI Choice-of-Law Rules in the Absence of Party Autonomy: The Most Significant Relationship Principle

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geva Benjamin ◽  
Peari Sagi
Keyword(s):  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Careful Evaluation ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Party Autonomy

This chapter discusses the question of which law should apply to adjudicate the parties' rights and duties when the parties have not selected one. It favours the extension of the popular ‘most significant relationship’ (MSR) principle to negotiable instruments law. A careful evaluation of the nature of this principle, and the objections raised against it, points towards its incorporation into this area of law. We challenge the traditional orthodoxies, expose their flawed foundations, and subsequently suggest a fairly dramatic reconsideration of the choice-of-law rules derived from them. The chapter then reveals clear traces of the MSR principle within the traditional and contemporary case law of negotiable instruments. This suggests that this principle has always played a role in the choice-of-law mechanics of the field. The chapter also offers some suggestions as to the operational mechanics of the MSR principle. We contend that the principle should not operate alone but in combination with flexible presumptions, which provide points of departure for choice-of-law analysis.

III Choice-of-Law Question, Three Major Developments, and the Need for Harmonization

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geva Benjamin ◽  
Peari Sagi
Keyword(s):  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Second Development ◽  
The Third ◽  
Common Thread ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Substantive Law

This chapter focuses on the question of choice-of-law and delineates its common thread within contemporary private law choice-of-law rules. In particular, it demonstrates that despite the variety of names and titles, one can point to three cornerstone developments within the contemporary choice-of-law doctrine, which all can be traced to different degrees of divergence within the various systems. The first development is a relaxation within the classical classification of the subject according to the presence of the so-called ‘foreign element’ in the factual matrix of the case. The second development is the advances of the so-called ‘party autonomy’ principle according to which the parties can agree on the identity of the applied law. Finally, the third development is the advances of the so-called ‘most significant relationship’ (MSR) principle according to which courts are required to assess the factual situation of a case as a whole and to evaluate the significance of the various factors relative to the degree of their connectedness to the particular liability event and the litigating parties. Given the failure of the systems to agree on unification of the substantive law, the chapter then highlights the need for harmonization of choice-of-law relating to negotiable instruments.

IV Negotiable Instruments Choice-of-Law Rules in the Various Systems

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geva Benjamin ◽  
Peari Sagi
Keyword(s):  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Selection Of

This chapter studies the existing choice-of-law frameworks set in the statutory provisions under the UK Bills of Exchange Act, the Geneva Conflicts Conventions, the American Second Restatement, and the Inter-American Convention. These various frameworks show very little evidence of the three major developments outlined in the previous chapter. Generally, the various frameworks have remained loyal to the classical choice-of-law doctrine of stringent territorial connecting factors. There is almost no trace of party autonomy or the most significant relationship principle. The requirement of a ‘foreign element’ presence in the factual matrix of the case seems to be the foremost precondition to choice-of-law analysis. Finally, the chapter demonstrates the global adherence to the ‘several laws’ approach; the advantage of avoiding a ‘single rule’ for the selection of a law applicable to a contract; and the desirability of having the same law governing both intrinsic and extrinsic validity for each party. The chapter also contends that the Second Restatement, although not flawless, sets up the most comprehensive and responsive scheme of those analysed.

scholarly journals Party Autonomy and Regional Harmonization of Rules in International Commercial Arbitration

2006 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Shackelford
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
International Trade ◽  
World Wide ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Trade Law

In the last half of the twentieth century, the trend towards “world-wide harmonization of trade law” has increased steadily with the globalization of economies and the corresponding increase in transnational commerce. Throughout this period, efforts have emerged to unify and harmonize international commercial law in order to promote international trade. The two primary ways this was pursued during the twentieth century were unification of choice of-law rules and harmonization or unification of substantive rules.

Party autonomy: promoting legal certainty and predictability in international commercial contracts through choice of law (justification)

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-58
Author(s):  
P Obiri-Korang
Keyword(s):  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Party Autonomy

Die beginsel van partyoutonomie is ’n belangrike beginsel van die kontraktereg en word vandag ook beskou as die belangrikste verbindingsfaktor in die internasionale kontraktereg. In gevorderde ekonomieë word partye toegelaat om die reg te kies wat van toepassing moet wees op die regte en verpligtinge van hul internasionale kontrakte ter bevordering van grensoorskrydende handel en beleggings. Die outeur ondersoek in hierdie artikel die teoretiese basis vir die handhawing van die beginsel van partyoutonomie met betrekking tot regskeuse in internasionale kontrakte. Afgesien van die tradisionele regverdiging vir die bevordering van die beginsel, word in die artikel ook grondwetlike verankering oorweeg. In hierdie verband stel dit voor dat grondwetlike bepalings wat die vrye ontwikkeling van persoonlikheid of menswaardigheid wil beskerm, ook die reg van private partye omvat om die reg van toepassing op hulle internasionale kontrakte te kies. Dieselfde geld met betrekking tot die bepaling wat in sekere grondwette gevind word ter bevordering van aktiwiteite wat kan lei tot die vestiging van ’n gesonde ekonomie. Die artikel is daarop gemik om regsekerheid en voorspelbaarheid te bevorder deur middel van partyoutonomie in die regskeuse vir kontrakte. Sodanige erkenning sal na verwagting die nodige vertroue in private sakepersone en beleggers inboesem en gevolglik internasionale handel en beleggingsaktiwiteite binne ’n bepaalde jurisdiksie bevorder. In die lig van die bogenoemde, stel hierdie artikel voor dat, tensy daar dwingende redes bestaan om partye die reg te ontsê om die stel regsreëls te kies wat hulle verkies om hul internasionale kommersiële kontrakte te reguleer, die howe oor die algemeen hulle rol moet beperk tot die interpretasie en toepassing van kontraktuele bedinge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document