82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
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. 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. |