Rome II: Difference between revisions

Rome II (view source)

Revision as of 09:07, 23 September 2016

264 bytes added , 23 September 2016

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Then you have the [[Rome II]] {{tag|EU Regulation}} ({{eureg|864|2007|EC}} to blame. It was published on 31 July 2007 and applies to all {{tag|EU}} Member States (except  {{tag|Denmark}}) . It aims to harmonise the conflict of laws rules applied by Member States when dealing with disputes involving non-contractual obligations and means that one rule for choice of law in such disputes applies across all Member States.
 ===[[Non-contractual obligations]]===
-{{noncontractualobligations}}
+In this context {{noncontractualobligations}}. 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 or 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 {{tag|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 {{tag|tort}} would only be relevant in most cases to [[concurrent liability|builders]].
+But point to note here: the main thing is to ensure any [[concurrent liability|claims]] in {{tag|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 {{tag|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 {{tag|contract}}. But for those not prescient enough to do that, there's always this [[magic words|magic]] incantation.
+Of course, the sensible thing would be to expressly exclude tortious claims under the {{tag|contract}}. But for those not prescient enough to do that, there’s always this [[magic words|magic]] incantation.
 ===Jurisdiction: you choose!===
-Parties can agree to submit non-contractual obligations to the law of their choice. Previously English courts haven't been sure as to whether this is {{tag|cricket}}. Rome II confirms that it is:
+Parties can agree to submit non-contractual obligations to the law of their choice. Previously English courts haven’t been sure as to whether this is {{tag|cricket}}. Rome II confirms that it is:
 *Where the agreement was made after the event giving rise to the damage; or
 *Where all parties are pursuing a commercial activity, if freely negotiated ''before'' the event giving rise to the damage occurred.