Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Brand and Fish on Choice of Law Rules in Contract and Tort Cases in the PIL Japanese Act

February 22, 2012/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

Ronald Brand (University of Pittsburgh – School of Law) and Tabitha Fish (Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway & Gibbons, P.A.) have posted An American Perspective on the New Japanese Act on General Rules for Application of Laws on SSRN.

Any changes in rules of applicable law in one state are necessarily of interest to those concerned with the outcome of potential cross-border disputes. This makes the new Japanese Act on Application of Laws of interest beyond the borders of Japan. In this article, we focus on the new rules governing applicable law in contract and tort cases. The primary point of comparison is U.S. law, but there is also reference to the other major recent civil law developments brought about by the European Union’s Rome I and II Regulations. Specific attention is given to how each of the sets of rules deals with the concept of party autonomy, taking into account the recent retreat in the United States from proposed changes to the party autonomy rule in Article 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

The paper was published in the Japanese Yearbook of International Law in 2009.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2012-02-22 13:19:062012-02-22 13:19:06Brand and Fish on Choice of Law Rules in Contract and Tort Cases in the PIL Japanese Act

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime September 15, 2026
  • Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings? September 12, 2026
  • Speaking for the Dead: Idziski and the Forum for Post-Mortem Likeness Claims September 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Andrew Dickinson and Alexander Thompson, The State Immunity Act 1978 (OUP, 2025) September 7, 2026
  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
Link to: Hess on Germany v. Italy Link to: Hess on Germany v. Italy Hess on Germany v. Italy Link to: Common European Sales Law, Third States and Consumers Link to: Common European Sales Law, Third States and Consumers Common European Sales Law, Third States and Consumers
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top