|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| If you’ve ever despaired at the pernicketiness of {{tag|governing law}} clauses such as this:—
| | {{Noncontractualobligations}} |
| | |
| :''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 {{noncontractualobligations}}. But, brilliantly, it does not apply to disputes as to [[non-contractual obligations]] 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 kind of hard to see how you could have a [[non-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]].
| |
| | |
| 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!=== | | ===Jurisdiction: you choose!=== |