Template:Noncontractualobligations: Difference between revisions

Template:Noncontractualobligations (view source)

Revision as of 10:00, 28 December 2018

1,712 bytes added , 28 December 2018

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,964

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-“[[non-contractual obligations]]” includes claims based on [[tort]] (such as [[negligence]]), breach of [[competition law]] and breach of [[statutory duty]].
+If you’ve ever despaired at the pernicketiness of {{tag|governing law}} clauses such as this:—
+:''This agreement and any [[non-contractual obligation]]s [[arising out of or in connection with it]] shall be governed by and construed [[in accordance with]] {{tag|English law}}.'' <br>
+Then you have the [[Rome II]] {{tag|EU Regulation}} ({{eureg|864|2007|EC}} to blame. Enacted in July 2007 it applies to all {{tag|EU}} Member States<ref>Except {{tag|Denmark}}.</ref> and is designed to harmonise the “[[conflict of laws]]” rules across [[Member States]]<ref>Except {{tag|Denmark}}.</ref> dealing with with [[non-contractual obligations|non-contractual disputes]].
+===[[Non-contractual obligations]]===
+In this context 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.
+But the main thing is to ensure any [[concurrent liability|concurrent claims]] in {{tag|contract}} and [[tort]] can be — must be — decided in the same forum. This is mostly interesting where the parties to a {{t|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 {{tag|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 {{tag|contract}}. But for those not prescient enough to do that, there’s always this [[magic words|magic]] incantation.