Governed by and interpreted in accordance with: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
It seems fussy enough even nominating the [[governing law]] that applies to your [[contract]] — but is ''de rigueur'' in the torrid international waters in which derivatives folk ply their trade, since counterparties are usually foreigners to each other, and to mother England, so really it doesn’t go without saying what law should govern the contract. So this leads us to all kinds of [[tedious]] complication.
It seems fussy enough even nominating the [[governing law]] that applies to your [[contract]] — but is ''de rigueur'' in the torrid international waters in which derivatives folk ply their trade, since counterparties are usually foreigners to each other, and to mother England, so really it doesn’t go without saying what law should govern the contract. So this leads us to all kinds of [[tedious]] complication.


Say I am from [[Luxembourg]], you from Mongolia, and we have a contract under which you will supply goods, Gobi yak milk being ''à la mode'' in the fashionable salons of Limpertsberg. How shall we govern our contractual relations?  
Say I am from [[Luxembourg]], you from Mongolia, and we have a contract under which you will supply goods, Gobi yak milk being ''á la mode'' in the fashionable salons of Limpertsberg. How shall we govern our contractual relations?  


Traditionally, the law of international commerce is [[English law]]: no doubt, a regrettable post-colonial hang-over, but we are where we are and look: the common law is pretty neat: it is consistent, predictable, and generally produces agreeable results.  
Traditionally, the law of international commerce is [[English law]]: no doubt, a regrettable post-colonial hang-over, but we are where we are and look: the common law is pretty neat: it is consistent, predictable, and generally produces agreeable results.