Applicable law. This Agreement and any claim or cause of action (whether in contract, tort or statute) arising out of, arising out of or related to this Agreement or the negotiation, performance or performance of this Agreement (including any claim or cause of action based on any representation or warranty arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or as an inducement to enter into this Agreement), are subject to and enforced in accordance with the national law of the State [ ], including its limitation periods. All standard provisions must be treated with the respect they deserve; in fact, a choice of law clause may determine the outcome with respect to the availability or unavailability of a particular means. A choice of law clause is an important part of the entire written agreement, which aims to provide security with respect to the transaction agreed between the parties. Failure to ensure that tort and contractual claims are subject to the same law creates the very uncertainty that the agreement should avoid. For a number of reasons, a clause in these Terms does not guarantee that non-contractual claims between the parties will always be governed by English law. For example, if a court outside the EU has jurisdiction, the conflict-of-laws rules applied to determine the applicable law vary from country to country, which in turn leads to an element of uncertainty and potential costs. When commercial parties enter into an agreement, a written agreement usually sets out their « contractual » obligations. However, the parties may also have obligations arising from general law that are not included in the terms and conditions of the contract. These « non-contractual » obligations could arise in relation to both: we recently held our quarterly Wine and Wisdom event in our Geneva offices to informally discuss the above issues, as contract holders often confuse applicable legal clauses with jurisdiction clauses. They are related and not the same. This confusion certainly exists with purely national contracts, but there is a greater risk of confusion or overlap in the context of international treaties.

We had the pleasure of welcoming lawyers from Switzerland, France, Russia, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain to this lively and informative discussion. Since Olga and I are New York lawyers (Olga is also a Russian lawyer), the following summary will focus on New York State law as there is no AMERICAN contract law, just as there is no « European » contract law in Europe. The inclusion of clear provisions on applicable law and jurisdiction in a contract, as mentioned above, should ultimately help ensure that all disputes are resolved in accordance with the law and the courts chosen by the parties. A reservation is that mandatory or public laws may prevail over validity clauses, e.B. in the areas of labor law, franchise law and distribution. If there is no clause conferring effective jurisdiction, the appropriate place of jurisdiction for the resolution of a dispute will be decided by reference to the rules of private international law. This can lead to uncertainty and inconvenience and lead to additional costs and delays in processing a procedure. Applicable law clauses, also known as choice of law clauses, are used in contracts and agreements and explain the laws governing the transaction in the event of a dispute. These are standard clauses found in commercial contracts and transactions. In practice, Rome I stresses the need to determine the law applicable at the beginning of the negotiations and, as far as possible, to expressly indicate which applicable law is to be applied in certain circumstances.

It will also be desirable to make a brief assessment of whether the mandatory legal standards of another country could affect the commercial objectives of the parties. It is clear that the Rome Convention will also be relevant for many years to come, and caution will be called for when examining and interpreting treaties that existed before the implementation of Rome I. Clauses conferring exclusive jurisdiction benefit from the protection of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction Agreements. The Hague Convention, which applies exclusively to business-to-business contracts, aims to ensure the worldwide recognition and enforcement of agreements of exclusive jurisdiction in civil or commercial matters. It is important that it also provides for the mutual enforcement of any resulting judgment. However, it does not apply to non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses (unless a Contracting State makes a declaration to that effect) or asymmetric clauses.5 In the absence of a jurisdiction clause, courts capable of settling disputes arising out of the contract must comply with the rules of private international law. This can lead to uncertainty and lead to additional costs and delays. In Europe, various instruments and conventions have been adopted to determine where a case can be heard. The basic rule is that a party must be sued in the court of its own country, subject to various exceptions. When drafting a jurisdiction clause, three options are available to this: it allows the parties to agree at the beginning of the contract to the courts of the country that will decide on the disputes arising from it. This means that parties can (generally) avoid jurisdictions that they may find less desirable or predictable. If you disagree on the forum you choose, it may mean that even a solid case is not worth pursuing economically.

If the parties agree that a particular court within the EU has exclusive jurisdiction, this generally prevents claims from being brought before other EU courts. A recent article by Professor John Coyle, published in the Washington Law Review, provides an in-depth review of the approaches of different state and federal courts to interpreting choice of law provisions. [4] The article is a treasure trove of information for practicing lawyers. However, the most important contribution of this article is its conclusion that it is not necessary to understand the different approaches of the courts to the interpretation of the standard choice of law clause if, instead of continuing to rely on a model clause, the authors of the directive have in fact formulated the choice of applicable law clause in such a way that it covers all issues that lead to the different approaches of these courts. And he even proposed a clause that seems to exclude any question of whether the chosen law applies to both procedural and substantive law, as well as to contractual and non-contractual claims. [5] You may, if you wish, formulate your jurisdiction clause in such a way as to limit yourself to a specific court of a jurisdiction. Under English law, it is perfectly legitimate to provide that a court of competent jurisdiction in London has exclusive jurisdiction, thereby preventing proceedings from being brought in another part of England and Wales.10 However, such an agreement carries the risk that a foreign court will find that London is not considered a country and that, therefore, the clause is invalid. If you enter into contracts with parties in jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom, it is recommended that the courts of England or the courts of England and Wales be designated as having jurisdiction. Unless the contract expressly provides for the applicable law, in the event of a dispute, a court will decide which law is to be applied in accordance with the relevant conflict-of-laws rules in that jurisdiction. Compare the above clause on the applicable law with the following jurisdiction/jurisdiction selection clause: The usual contracts with clauses on the applicable law include: Rome II offers the commercial parties the opportunity to obtain greater economic security by allowing them to contractually agree on a clause on the applicable law that covers both the contractual and non-contractual obligations of the Covers parties.

As far as editorial requirements are concerned, Article 14 does not prescribe any specific formalities. It merely provides that the choice of law governed by their non-contractual obligations « shall be expressed or demonstrated with sufficient certainty by the circumstances of the case ». In some jurisdictions, the parties are free to choose the applicable law of that jurisdiction and the recourse to its courts. However, many legal systems require at least some contact with this court for reasons of judicial efficiency and public order[2]. Many states in the United States need contact before the state recovers in its courts or enforces its law. Significantly, New York State has a legal exemption for contracts worth more than $250,000; In other words, parties to a contract can choose New York law as the applicable law, even if there is no contact with New York State, as long as the minimum value of the contract is $250,000. New York State has given this legal advantage to the international business community because New York State is a global commercial and financial center with an excellent judicial system[3]. The choice of non-exclusive jurisdiction provides, in principle, that disputes are to be heard before the courts of a particular jurisdiction, without prejudice to the right of either party to bring a dispute before the courts of another jurisdiction, where appropriate. Such clauses provide certainty to the extent that you know that disputes can be heard in a particular jurisdiction that you find attractive, but if jurisdiction is required elsewhere, it is available. Although they offer greater flexibility, there is a risk of parallel procedures.3 Particular care should be taken when relying on standard conditions. If you wish to invoke the jurisdiction clause, you must ensure that the other party is informed of the clause and the choice of jurisdiction.8 A jurisdiction clause may provide jurisdiction in a country associated with one or more of the parties, or it may provide jurisdiction in a neutral forum. There are three main reasons for specifying which forum has jurisdiction: jurisdiction of the applicable law and choice of location need not necessarily be the same, and parties may benefit from Alberta`s substantive law while submitting to the procedural laws of another jurisdiction ..

. .