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

Hoffheimer on Conflicting Rules of Interpretation

August 24, 2010/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

Michael Hoffheimer, who is a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School, has posted Conflicting Rules of Interpretation and Construction in Multi-Jurisdictional Disputes on SSRN. The abstract reads:

This paper discusses history of choice of law rules for interpreting ambiguous language and criticizes current approaches that apply foreign rules of interpretation and construction when doing so frustrates the intent of parties.

And from the introduction:

This Article concludes that courts should routinely apply their own forum law to matters of interpretation and construction in the absence of a good reason for applying a different foreign rule. In principle, there are good reasons for applying the law chosen by the parties, but it makes no sense to apply such law when it frustrates their intent or effectively renders a contract illusory. A forum’s own principles of interpretation will be flexible enough to take into consideration any foreign law relied on by drafters, just as they will be flexible enough to consider the meaning of foreign words and phrases.

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 Cuniberti2010-08-24 07:49:252010-08-24 09:26:39Hoffheimer on Conflicting Rules of Interpretation

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Mozambican Supreme Court Recognises an Indian Adoption: A Teleological Approach to the Recognition of Foreign Acts October 19, 2026
  • Egyptian Supreme Court Enforces Italian Judgment: The Right Outcome despite Some Reservations October 14, 2026
  • Talaq Divorce Cases in the United States October 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia (Lemuel L Lopez) October 5, 2026
  • Zamzam on Egyptian Private International Law (in Arabic): Towards Reviving the Golden Age of Egyptian Private International Law October 2, 2026
  • Maintenance Duties for a Gestational Surrogate Following Non-Recognition – An Unreported Spanish Judgment September 22, 2026
  • 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
Link to: Knapp on EU Data Protection and US Discovery Link to: Knapp on EU Data Protection and US Discovery Knapp on EU Data Protection and US Discovery Link to: Knox on the Presumption against Extrajurisdictionality Link to: Knox on the Presumption against Extrajurisdictionality Knox on the Presumption against Extrajurisdictionality
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top