Back
to top
Conflict of Laws Problem Question
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Hi folks,
I've been tackling a problem question regarding conflict of jurisdiction and I'm struggling for info. It concerns a claimant (domiciled in Delaware, US) and two defendants, one domiciled in England Wales and its subsidiary in Texas. The subsidiary had a contract with the claimant but committed a tort which made the claimant unable to carry out the contractual obligations. The parties agreed in their contract that the courts in Illinois (USA) would be competent for any dispute arising out of the contract. The claimant has brought an action in London and I have to argue that the English courts have jurisdiction over the matter. I've tried applying the Brussels Regulation but I only seem to have argued that the courts in the US are competent.
Any ideas or pointers in the right direction?
Cheers.
I've been tackling a problem question regarding conflict of jurisdiction and I'm struggling for info. It concerns a claimant (domiciled in Delaware, US) and two defendants, one domiciled in England Wales and its subsidiary in Texas. The subsidiary had a contract with the claimant but committed a tort which made the claimant unable to carry out the contractual obligations. The parties agreed in their contract that the courts in Illinois (USA) would be competent for any dispute arising out of the contract. The claimant has brought an action in London and I have to argue that the English courts have jurisdiction over the matter. I've tried applying the Brussels Regulation but I only seem to have argued that the courts in the US are competent.
Any ideas or pointers in the right direction?
Cheers.
0
reply
Report
#2
Have you been given the Jurisdiction and Governing Laws clauses for the contract? That would be the first point to check.
Where the tort is committed is important. It is different in Tort and Contract (off the top of my head).
Being competent isn't the same as accepting jurisdiction. I'd need to check by CPR for you to be more sure.
Where the tort is committed is important. It is different in Tort and Contract (off the top of my head).
Being competent isn't the same as accepting jurisdiction. I'd need to check by CPR for you to be more sure.
0
reply
All we were told was that any dispute arising out of the contract would be settled by the courts in Illinois. However, since the tort is seperate to the contract this doesn't appear to apply at restrict the parties to the use of the Illinois courts. The tort was committed in Illinois, which would appear to indicate that the courts in Illinois would be competent under both the Brussels Regulation Art. 7(2) and common law, but I have to argue for the London courts to be competent. I've suggested that it would be more of a forum conveniens but need more convincing arguments.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
.jpg)