Rome II: Difference between revisions

131 bytes added ,  28 June 2016
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
In this context “[[non-contractual obligations]]” includes claims based on [[tort]] such as [[negligence]], breach of [[competition law]] and breach of [[statutory duty]]. But, brilliantly, it does not apply to non-contractual obligations arising under [[bills of exchange]], [[cheque]]s and [[promissory note]]s and other [[negotiable instrument]]s which arise out of their negotiable character.
In this context “[[non-contractual obligations]]” includes claims based on [[tort]] such as [[negligence]], breach of [[competition law]] and breach of [[statutory duty]]. But, brilliantly, it does not apply to non-contractual obligations arising under [[bills of exchange]], [[cheque]]s and [[promissory note]]s and other [[negotiable instrument]]s which arise out of their negotiable character.


Rome II doesn't apply to company law defamation either. Though it's kind of hard to see how you could have a contractual obligation to defame someone.
Rome II doesn't apply to company law or defamation, either. Though it's kind of hard to see how you could have a contractual obligation to defame someone.


but point to note here: the main thing is to ensure any [[concurrent liability|claims]] in [[contract]] and [[tort]] are governed by the same forum. Of most interest in cross border cases where parties are in different jurisdictions and that wouldn't follow as a matter of course.
But point to note here: the main thing is to ensure any [[concurrent liability|claims]] in [[contract]] and [[tort]] are governed by the same forum. Of most interest in cross border cases where parties are in different jurisdictions and that wouldn't follow as a matter of course. and 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 tortious claims under the contract. But for those not prescient enough to do that, there's always this magic incantation.
Of course, the sensible thing would be to expressly exclude tortious claims under the contract. But for those not prescient enough to do that, there's always this magic incantation.