INTERNATIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2001
Assignment #33
[Ch. 12. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS]
B. Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction
1. Party Choice
THE BREMEN V. ZAPATA OFF-SHORE CO., p. 729 (U.S. 1972)
-
Did the parties have a forum-selection clause for disputes under their
towing contract?
-
was it a standard-form contract, or freely negotiated? Should it matter?
-
did the chosen forum have any connection with the K? If not, why was it
chosen?
-
why did the defendant want to litigate in London rather than Tampa?
-
admiralty action to limit liability
-
exculpatory clause
-
why did the plaintiff choose the forum it did?
-
are international contracts especially suited to enforceable choice-of-forum
clauses?
-
what discretion the trial court have in deciding whether to enforce the
forum clause?
SCHERK V. ALBERTO-CULVER CO., p. 737 (U.S. 1974)
-
what was the plaintiff complaining about, and what was its legal theory
of liability?
-
why did the defendant say the plaintiff was suing in the wrong forum?
-
what difference would it make to the plaintiff, if it had to use the other
forum?
-
why would claims under the US Securities Acts not be arbitrable?
-
why should international disputes be an exception to the rule of non-arbitrability?
TIMBERLANE LUMBER CO. V. BANK OF AMERICA, p. 744 (9th Cir. 1976)
-
what is the nature of the dispute?
-
what is the basis for U.S. jurisdiction to prescribe?
-
territory?
-
effects?
-
nationality?
-
passive personality?
-
what other country has jurisdiction to prescribe with respect to the conduct
at issue?
-
on what basis?
-
do its rules conflict with the US rules, calling for different results?
-
how does the court resolve the issue of priority?
-
"assess the conflict" - what does that mean?
-
weigh the elements - what are they?
-
are any factors in the balance given special weight?