However, as a general proposal, the adoption of a clause in the above conditions can only reinforce the prospect that the parties` non-contractual obligations are governed by the law under the applicable law. This, in turn, will allow the parties to analyze their legal relationships with greater certainty and it is hoped that the risk of spending time and costs arguing over the applicable law will be avoided. In Halpern -v- Halpern,6, there was no explicit choice of law, but one of the parties argued that the agreement was governed by Jewish law. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument: a country`s right is necessary. If the parties wish to have their relationship subject to a law other than that of a country, they should include arbitration. In particular, Section 46 of the Arbitration Act expressly recognizes that arbitration tribunals can and must adjudicate disputes under the law chosen by the parties “or if the parties agree, in accordance with other considerations that are appropriate or set by the courts.” When an agreement is reached by commercial parties, “contractual” obligations are generally defined in a written agreement. However, the parties may also have obligations under common law that are not included in the terms of the contract. These “extra-contract” obligations could arise with respect to both: “The evidence before me showed that each party insisted without difficulty on not accepting the jurisdiction or law in force of the other and that it could not reach agreement on another jurisdiction or on the existing legislation. As a result, [the agreement] does not contain a clause of law or jurisdiction clause. In addition, neither party intended to give the other an advantage in the conclusion of the agreement. If they want to hide and create difficulties for lawyers to debate in the years to come, they have done well.
The Common/Civil Law mixed group. This includes countries such as China, Japan, Jersey, Scotland and South Africa. Everyone is anglyt by English common law – on the United States in the case of Japan. Japan was originally a German law; Scotland was Roman law; South Africa was and is predominantly Roman-Dutch. Jersey`s law was originally based on pre-constitutional Norman law. China appears to be positioning its trading legal system to play an international role. English law has a strong track record of market acceptance. That is acceptable in all markets, which helps the agreement. It has two centuries of history of this role. The commercial parties know what is being offered, the law is known from constant use by international parties and no further investigation is required. As a general rule, this does not apply to Germany, France or most other jurisdictions. New York law also has a very strong acceptance of the market.
Similarly, the New York law provides that each party may sue another party in New York courts if the agreement contains a New York legal choice clause, the parties have agreed in the New York court treaty, and the amount of the litigation exceeds $1 million. The UK`s position is that the European regime no longer applies to leaving the EU. Although both parties appear to be interested in somehow emulating the existing system, there may be other agreements to which the United Kingdom has joined (for example. B the Hague Convention) have a new meaning.