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

  • 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
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 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