The Law of International Transactions and Relations: Cases and Materials

1961 ◽  
Vol 74 (6) ◽  
pp. 1245
Author(s):  
John G. Laylin ◽  
Milton Katz ◽  
Kingman Brewster
Keyword(s):  
The Law ◽  
International Transactions

The Tension Between Party Autonomy and European Union Law: Some Observations on Ingmar GB Ltd V Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
H L E Verhagen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Basic Principle ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Contractual Relationship ◽  
Rome Convention ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
International Transactions

Party autonomy is the basic principle for international contracts. By making a ‘choice of law’, the parties to a contract can agree amongst themselves which law is to regulate their contractual relationship. In international transactions, the law of the parties' choice replaces the law that would otherwise have governed the contract, including the mandatory rules (ius cogens) of the latter law. Article 3 of the 1980 Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (hereafter: the ‘Rome Convention’) fully recognises this principle of party autonomy. Under Article 3 the parties are free to choose whichever law they deem appropriate to govern their contractual relationship. It is not even necessary for the transaction to display some connection with the chosen law.

The Law of International Transactions

1984 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 788
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Motomura ◽  
Ferenc Madl
Keyword(s):  
The Law ◽  
International Transactions

Ethical Challenges: Less About Moral Wrongdoing and More About Communication Breakdown

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Leslie ◽  
Mary Casper
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Thickened Liquids ◽  
Communication Breakdown ◽  
Professional Duty ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
The Law ◽  
Personal Case

“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former? In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document