Rome II is an EC7 regulation that lays down the rules governing the law applicable to non-contractual obligations in “civil and commercial matters”. The Regulation entered into force on 11 January 2009 and is applied by the courts of all Member States except Denmark. Although the UK has since left the EU, Rome II remains an EU right retained in the UK. The courts must first decide on the applicable law and jurisdiction clause if the parties do not specify them. This often leads to costly litigation, as either party may try to obtain a judgment in a jurisdiction that suits them best, which often leads to conflicts of laws. In order to minimise the impact of these sensitive jurisdictional issues, it is important to include an applicable law clause and a choice of jurisdiction clause to express the choice of parties to the laws of the country, and the legal system should regulate all contractual disputes. In general, however, acceptance of a clause in the above conditions can only increase the likelihood that the non-contractual obligations of the parties will be subject to the law specified in the applicable law clause. This will allow parties to analyze their legal relationships with greater certainty and hopefully avoid the risk of spending time and costs litigation over applicable law. However, this liberal approach of the Delaware courts does not guarantee that a choice of law clause that does not have sufficient scope to clearly cover tort and contract claims will actually do so in Delaware. In fact, in the recent decision in Reid v.
Siniscalchi, C.A. No. 2874-VCS, tr. Judgment (Del. May 3, 2017; filed July 17, 2017) Vice-Chancellor Slights concluded that non-contractual and tortious claims arising out of an agreement that provided that it was to be interpreted “in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom” were governed not by the law of the chosen jurisdiction, but by the law of Italy, which had the most important connection with the dispute. Vice Chancellor Slights reached this conclusion based on the limited wording of the clause and a 2014 decision of the Delaware Chancery Court interpreting a similar clause.  Based on this court`s review of applicable English law to determine the scope of the choice of law clause, the court concluded that it did not cover non-contractual claims such as fraud. In addition, the legal system binds both parties in certain provisions. Parties who sign an employment contract have the option to choose the applicable law with which they feel most comfortable. However, if this is not the case, the court may enforce its own choice of law.
An applicable legal clause determines the law applicable to a contract and the resulting disputes. It lays down the legal principles to be applied in determining the rights and obligations of the contracting parties (e.g. whether a valid contract is concluded, whether the fault is due, what is the extent of the breach, whether it is a claim for damages for breach of contract, etc.). Therefore, there should be a choice of law clause in all international treaties (e.g. commercial contracts). One of the most important clauses in any contract is the choice of law provision. The choice of law determines the applicable law of the relationship described in the contract, i.e. which law of the place applies to disputes between the parties in case of breach of contract. For example, if a contract between two U.S. companies is broken in California and Texas, respectively, the applicable law will determine which of the local laws of those two states will be enforced while a solution is sought. The choice of law clause allows the parties to agree on the law of the State that will be applied to their contractual relationship. In addition, it helps with the following benefits.
If the purpose of a conflict-of-laws clause is to provide certainty as to the applicable law in the event of a subsequent dispute, it is logical that the parties intended the chosen law to cover both tort and contractual claims arising from the contract in which that choice of law clause is included. But this is not how many courts interpret the standard choice of law clause. For example, in Krock v. Lipsay, 97 F.3d 640, 645 (2d Cir. 1996), the Court held that: Courts shall apply common law principles of private international law in determining whether they have jurisdiction, the applicable law of a contract, and/or the validity and effect of a choice of law clause. If jurisdiction has been conferred on a foreign court, it is necessary to examine the extent to which that court gives effect to an express choice of applicable law. Appropriate local legal advice may be sought on this point. For the choice of forum and the applicable law of a party, it is of no use if, in practice, it is not possible to enforce the judgment of the court of its choice. At common law, a foreign judgment cannot be enforced in the same manner as a local judgment unless new proceedings are commenced.
There may be reciprocal enforcement laws for foreign judgments applicable to the enforcement of Commonwealth judgments. All parties agree that the courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any dispute (including claims for set-off and counterclaims) that may arise in connection with the establishment, validity, effect, interpretation or performance or legal relationships established by this Agreement or otherwise in connection with this [Agreement] and irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the courts for such purposes. Participants in a joint venture must consider several factors when choosing the law governing the joint venture or shareholders` agreement, as well as the dispute resolution mechanism and jurisdiction. We`ll look at them below. An exception allows enforcement proceedings (but not injunctive relief) relating to state property used for commercial purposes. However, this exception does not allow enforcement proceedings to be initiated against the assets of the central bank or monetary authority, nor for an injunction to be granted against the assets of a State in general. This guide highlights the relevant law and the main considerations that should be taken into account when drafting or considering the implications of an applicable law clause. Before determining the applicable law, the parties should verify due diligence between countries. This will help strengthen the law. In addition, the current law should assist in compliance with legal formalities, as it is indeed an important part of the applicable law in the contract. By including a jurisdiction clause in a contract, the parties can determine the law that governs disputes between them. Such a clause ensures that the parties are bound by their contract and allows them to sue each other in court, if necessary.
Let`s find out more about how these clauses can affect the enforceability of agreements. Therefore, when drafting the applicable law clause, consideration should be given to whether it should be limited to the agreement itself or extended to other non-contractual obligations relating to the contract.6 There is currently no clear authority as to whether such a clause would be effective in English law in determining the law, which governs the non-contractual obligations of the parties. In the light of Rome II, this position has now changed. Subject to special restrictions under applicable local law, the parties to a joint venture or shareholders` agreement are generally free to choose the applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. There are no legal restrictions on joint ventures in the UK.1 This guide is intended to facilitate understanding of applicable law, jurisdiction and related clauses. It briefly discusses the issues that arise in deciding which court or tribunals in the country or territory have jurisdiction over disputes arising under an agreement and which laws. It is not intended to provide a detailed analysis of the law, but provides general guidance on the most important aspects to be taken into account. The applicable law clause chosen in a contract has no effect with respect to a non-contractual (i.e.
tort) claim between the parties with respect to the same subject matter, for example, a claim for misrepresentation may not be governed by the chosen law if the misrepresentation is made in another jurisdiction. The parties are free to choose their applicable law: it does not have to be related to the registered office of the parties or the subject matter of the contract.3 The choice of law and the place of jurisdiction are all negotiated terms, but the parties to a proposed joint venture may be reluctant to invest significant time and resources in the problems that arise when the parties are in dispute and the objective of cooperation failed. However, the appropriate choice of applicable law and jurisdiction clauses are crucial issues for risk management in the event of a dispute.