Template:Noncontractualobligations: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If you’ve ever despaired at the pernicketiness of | If you’ve ever despaired at the pernicketiness of [[governing law]] clauses such as this:— | ||
{{quote| | {{quote| | ||
''This agreement and any [[non-contractual obligation]]s [[arising out of or in connection with it]] shall be [[Governed by and interpreted in accordance with|governed by and construed]] [[in accordance with]] | ''This agreement and any [[non-contractual obligation]]s [[arising out of or in connection with it]] shall be [[Governed by and interpreted in accordance with|governed by and construed]] [[in accordance with]] [[English law]].''}} | ||
Then you have the [[Rome II]] | Then you have the [[Rome II]] [[EU Regulation]]<ref>{{eureg|864|2007|EC}}</ref> to blame. Enacted in 2007, it applies to all [[EU]] Member States, except Denmark but still including the UK, and is designed to harmonise the “conflict of laws” rules across Member States, except Denmark but still including the UK, dealing with [[non-contractual obligations|non-contractual disputes]]. | ||
====“But still including the UK”? Didn’t the UK take back control?==== | |||
Brexit does not ''necessarily'' mean Brexit. The UK still is a party to Rome I and II as they form part of the “EU retained law” which the UK continues to apply post [[Brexit]]. | |||
====“Non-contractual obligations”==== | |||
Breach of “[[non-contractual obligations]]” includes actions based on [[tort]] (e.g. [[negligence]]), competition law and statutory duty. But, fabulously, ''not'' those arising out of the [[negotiable]] nature of [[bills of exchange]], [[cheque]]s and [[promissory note]]s and other [[negotiable instrument]]s, or company law or defamation — though it’s hard to see how you could have a [[non-contractual obligation]] to defame someone. | |||
Of course, the sensible thing would be to expressly exclude [[tort]] claims under the | But the main thing is to ensure any [[concurrent liability|concurrent claims]] in [[contract]] and [[tort]] can be — must be — decided in the same forum. This is mostly interesting where the parties to a [[contract]] are in different jurisdictions, and each will prefer their own jurisdiction to hear a non-contractual dispute. But even there, frankly, a concurrent claim in [[tort]] would only be relevant in most cases to [[concurrent liability|builders]]. | ||
Of course, the sensible thing would be to expressly exclude [[tort]] claims under the [[contract]]. But for those not prescient enough to do that, there’s always this [[magic words|magic]] incantation. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:03, 2 September 2024
If you’ve ever despaired at the pernicketiness of governing law clauses such as this:—
This agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law.
Then you have the Rome II EU Regulation[1] to blame. Enacted in 2007, it applies to all EU Member States, except Denmark but still including the UK, and is designed to harmonise the “conflict of laws” rules across Member States, except Denmark but still including the UK, dealing with non-contractual disputes.
“But still including the UK”? Didn’t the UK take back control?
Brexit does not necessarily mean Brexit. The UK still is a party to Rome I and II as they form part of the “EU retained law” which the UK continues to apply post Brexit.
“Non-contractual obligations”
Breach of “non-contractual obligations” includes actions based on tort (e.g. negligence), competition law and statutory duty. But, fabulously, not those arising out of the negotiable nature of bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes and other negotiable instruments, or company law or defamation — though it’s hard to see how you could have a non-contractual obligation to defame someone.
But the main thing is to ensure any concurrent claims in contract and tort can be — must be — decided in the same forum. This is mostly interesting where the parties to a contract are in different jurisdictions, and each will prefer their own jurisdiction to hear a non-contractual dispute. But even there, frankly, a concurrent claim in tort would only be relevant in most cases to builders.
Of course, the sensible thing would be to expressly exclude tort claims under the contract. But for those not prescient enough to do that, there’s always this magic incantation.