<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red">Kavouss,<span></span></span></p>
<p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:red;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Please
allow me to add my answers to Paul’s answers.
I’ve put my answers in red, and Paul’s in blue, to distinguish them. (I’ve
also taken the liberty of putting Paul’s answers in “sentence case.”)</span><br></p>
<p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:red;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I’m
not sure why you were not convinced by Paul’s answers, as they seemed quite
accurate to me. In any event, let me see
if I can add something helpful.</span><br></p>
<p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:red;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Before
getting to the questions -- the issue of “choice of law” is neither unforeseen
nor particularly unpredictable. “Choice
of Law”, also known as “Conflict of Law” (or “Conflicts of Laws”), is a
standard and well-developed area of law and jurisprudence, in the US and elsewhere,
with roots going back centuries. It’s
taught in every law school I know of. Of
course, the law of Choice of Law is growing and developing and there are
different approaches in different jurisdictions and depending on the type of
case as well.</span><br></p>
<p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:red;font-family:arial,sans-serif">It’s
also not unforeseen in our work. “Choice
of law” is one of the “layers of jurisdiction” we have been referring to since
the beginning of our work.</span><br></p>
<p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:red;font-family:arial,sans-serif">At
the end of this answer, I’ve appended a fairly short summary of US choice of
law rules, which has been at the end of the “Influence of jurisdiction” Google doc for some months now. To the extent that you find my explanation,
as well as Paul’s, insufficient, I think this summary will be quite helpful. This was taken from the website of the
Proskauer law firm, a first rate firm (and not one I’ve been associated with).</span><br></p>
<p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Kavouss: My Questions are</span><br></p>
<p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">a. </span><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">What do you mean by <i>(the
substantive law to apply?)</i></span><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:blue;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Paul: I mean the law that will be used to decide the case.
For example, it may be against the law, in say, India, for ICANN to refuse to
publish its financial data publicly (I am making this example up of course – i
don’t know what Indian law is). If the court or arbitrator hearing the
case decided that Indian law was the applicable substantive law, it would then
have to make a decision about whether or not ICANN was violating the
substantive law. In other words, it would have to decide what Indian law
requires and whether or not ICANN had complied. The Indian law here would
be the substantive law to apply to the case.</span><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Greg: This
is one of the “layers of jurisdiction.”
When we have referred to “choice of law”, this is a reference to the
choice of which jurisdiction’s “substantive law” will apply to the case. Another term for this is the “governing law”
of the case.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.25in;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">b. If the parties made
a choice of law , say e.g. Swiss Law, should the case be sent to a Swiss
Court or as you said the case still would be treated by the Court to which it
was submitted but the Court merely applies Swiss Law.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue">Paul: That very much depends on where the suit is brought and what
else the parties have said. For example, the parties could say “Swiss law
applies but the case will be heard in London arbitration” or “Swiss law applies
and the case should be in Swiss court” for the second of these, if
someone brought a suit in the us courts anyway, the us courts would generally
defer to the language of the contract and dismiss the case with direction to
refile it in Switzerland. I do not know what the law would be if the suit
were in India or Iran or the UK or France though. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue">The harder question is when the parties say that “Swiss law
applies” but they don’t say anything about where the court case should
be. Then the courts would have to decide – in the US that decision would
be based on questions of convenience (where are the witnesses, for example?)
And other similarly equitable questions. Again, I have no idea how an Indian/Iranian/UK/French
court would answer the question.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Greg: As
Paul notes, in a case involving a contract, the parties may have specified both
the “choice of law” (e.g., Swiss law) and the “venue” (e.g., ICC arbitration in
London or a Swiss Court, or “the Federal and State courts in Los Angeles
County, California”). If the parties do
not contest these choices later, the courts (in the US and elsewhere) will generally tend to give deference to the
parties’ choices.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">For the purpose of your question, I would assume
that the parties have specified a choice of law, but not a choice of
venue. Thus, the plaintiff could choose
to bring the case anywhere the plaintiff would have standing and the court
would have “personal jurisdiction” over the defendant (i.e., they could get and
keep the defendant in that court). The
defendant could contest the choice of venue, or the court could <i>sua sponte (</i>on its own initiative) look
at whether it was an appropriate forum for the case. As Paul indicates, this could in either case be
a question of inconvenience (<i>forum non
conveniens)</i> (where are the witnesses, where are the documents, what is the
language of the documents?) and/or “minimum
contacts.” (How relevant is this forum to the case?) The court may also look at its own ability to
apply the substantive law of another jurisdiction.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">If the court determined it was not an appropriate
forum, the court would typically dismiss the case. There is no system I’m aware of to send a
case from one country to another country.
The plaintiff would then have to refile in a more appropriate venue.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Assuming the parties do not contest the choice of
venue, and the court does not determine that it is an inappropriate forum, the
case would likely stay in the original court, and the court would apply Swiss
law in this example. It is not at all
uncommon (in the US or elsewhere) for a court to apply the substantive law of
another jurisdiction. Indeed, this is one
of the reasons that “choice of law” (also known as “conflict of law”) rules
exist.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Kavouss: In the latter case,
to what extent the Court could claim that it is fully familiar to all details
of Swiss Law? Take the extreme case that there would agreements for 20, 30 ...
choice of Law for 20, 30 different cases. Do you believe that the Court
in question would be familiar with the details of all 20, 30 Laws ? I find it
very difficult that ,e.g. a State Court in any country would have
such vast knowledge of all laws that mentioned above<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue">Paul: If a court kept a case
but had to apply Swiss law, the court would have to be educated in the
law. That might be by the parties or the court might ask an expert.
In the US we also have a process (not used that often) where the US court could
certify the question to a Swiss court and ask it for the answer. The
difficulty in learning the law is another one of the equitable factors that
might make a us court transfer the case to Switzerland if the parties have not
specified that in contract to stay in the us.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Greg: The
Court would not claim it is already familiar with all the details of another
jurisdiction’s law. That is not the
assumption that underlies the concept of a court applying the law of another
jurisdiction. Rather, as Paul notes, the
parties would be required to provide information necessary for the court to
apply the law. This may include hiring
an expert in the law of the jurisdiction.
This would almost certainly be required for each party when preparing
their papers. The expert may also be
called on to testify on the law. Each
party may have their own expert in that law.
The court may also bring in its own expert, instead of or in addition to
hearing from the parties’ experts.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Situations can arise where the laws of different
jurisdictions might apply to different aspects of the case. In this situation, a court has little choice
but to deal with the law of another jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) in addition
to its own law.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">In any event, the court would not need to have or
gain a wide knowledge of the law of the other jurisdiction; it would only need
to deal with the laws that are implicated in the case.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">c. If case that there is no previously
agreed for a choice of Law, why it would not be possible that the parties be
asked for the choice of Law before the Court in question starts discussing the
case. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">An extreme situation of that
was the case of "Y" that the defendant had no information that
at a given date a plaintiff would submit a case to any Court
thus there was possibility to choose a given Law. Then wouldn't it
be logical that both parties be given the opportunity to choose a given Law?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue">Paul: Usually, parties
make the choice of law beforehand when they enter a contract. If they
don’t then it is unlikely that they will agree when the law suit starts – after
all, they are now fighting in court and I assume that one of the parties will
look at it and say “I win under Swiss law” and the other will say to itself
“since we may lose under Swiss law, let’s ask for Indian law.” If the
parties were in agreement as to applicable law, a US court would probably honor
that agreement – but it is much more likely that they would disagree.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:blue;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Greg: In any court case, it’s ultimately up to the
court what law will apply. As noted
before, if the parties have made a choice in a contract, the court will
typically defer to that choice, but the court retains the right to determine
that the chosen law is not appropriate.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">If the parties have not agreed on
a choice of law, the court will make that determination. If it’s obvious (e.g., the parties are
resident in the same jurisdiction, all relevant activity took place in that
jurisdiction, etc.), it’s likely that little attention will be paid to the
issue (because it’s a non-issue). Where
there is a real question as to what law applies, one or both parties are likely
to seize on this and try to convince the court which law to apply, based on
well-settled choice of law rules. The
court could also ask both parties to brief the issue, even if the parties did
not raise it, if there was a genuine issue, and the answer under choice of law
rules was not obvious. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Of course, if the parties can
agree that a particular law applies, and it is reasonable and consistent with
choice of law principles, they are very likely that the judge will agree as
well.<span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Best regards,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:red;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Greg</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:blue;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Annex I</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Summary of US choice of law rules (from </span><a href="http://www.proskauerguide.com/litigation/7/IV"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">http://www.proskauerguide.com/litigation/7/IV</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">) </span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">A.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">There are several
distinct choice of law regimes that have emerged, with states falling into one
or more in their choice of law analysis. The principal regimes are discussed
below.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">B.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The
“traditional” test: the First Restatement</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Under the traditional
test of the First Restatement, followed fully in some jurisdictions today (such
as Maryland, Virginia, New Mexico, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Wyoming
and Kansas), the law that applies depends on the cause of action and on single
points of contact.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Torts and Fraud: Torts
are governed in nearly all issues by the law of the place of wrong, “the state
where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort
takes place.” Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 377. In most cases the
last event is the event causing injury and so the place of the wrong is
effectively the place of injury. Frauds are similarly governed by the place of
the wrong, which is where the loss is sustained, not where the fraudulent
misrepresentation is made. <i>Id</i>., illus. 4.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Contracts: In contracts,
claims regarding the validity (capacity, formalities, consideration and
defenses) are governed by the place where the contract was made, where “the
principal event necessary to make a contract occurs.” <i>Id</i>. §§ 311
cmt. d, 332 (1934).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Property: Questions
concerning interests in land are governed generally by the law of the <i>situs</i>.
In the case of movables, the law of the place where the movable was located at
the time of the transaction generally applies.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">C.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The
“significant relationship” test: the Second Restatement</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The Second Restatement
contains certain sections governing specific causes of action as well as an
umbrella “significant relationship” test in Section 6(2). The specific sections
governing torts, fraud and contract each refer back to the principles and
overriding “significant relationship” test. Some version of the Second
Restatement is followed by the majority of States (for example, New York,
Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, Alaska, Arizona, California (contracts only),
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South
Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Washington). <i>See</i> Symeon
C. Symeonides, <i>Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2006: Twentieth
Annual Survey</i>, 54 Am. J. Comp. Law 697, 712 (2006).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The Section 6(2)
“Significant relationship” test: Section 6(2) provides that, subject to
constitutional limitations, courts must follow the statutory directives of
their own state on choice of law. In the absence of any, the factors relevant
to the analysis of the applicable law include:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the needs of the
interstate and international systems,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the relevant policies of
the forum,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the relevant policies of
other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the
determination of the particular issue,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">d.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the protection of
justified expectations,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">e.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the basic policies
underlying the particular field of law,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">f.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">certainty,
predictability and uniformity of result, and<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">g.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">ease in the
determination and application of the law to be applied.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The Second Restatement
provides choice of law rules for each cause of action separately, with the
analysis reverting to the ”significant relationship” test.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Torts: The rights and
liabilities with respect to issues in torts are determined by the local law of
the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant
relationship under the principles stated in Section 6. Second Restatement §
145. Contacts to be taken into account in applying the Section 6 principles
are:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>i.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place where the
injury occurred,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place where the
conduct causing the injury occurred,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>iii.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the domicile, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>iv.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place where the
relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Fraud: Where the
plaintiff’s actions in reliance on the misrepresentation took place in the same
state as that in which the misrepresentations were made, that state’s laws will
govern <i>unless</i> another state has a more significant
relationship under Section 6. Second Restatement § 148.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Where the plaintiff’s
actions in reliance took place in whole or in part in a state other than that
where the misrepresentations were made, the following contacts will be
considered in determining which state has the most significant relationship:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>i.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place where the
plaintiff acted in reliance upon the representations,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place where the
plaintiff received the representations,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>iii.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place where the
defendant made the representations,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>iv.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the domicile, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>v.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place where a
tangible thing which is the subject of the transaction between the parties was
situated at the time, and<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>vi.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place where the
plaintiff is to render performance under a contract which he has been induced
to enter by the false representations of the defendant.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">d.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Contract: In the first
instance, the courts must give effect to the law chosen by the parties. In the
absence of any such agreement, the courts are directed to the “significant
relationship” test of Section 6. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §
188. The contacts to take into account in determining those principles are:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>i.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place of
contracting,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place of negotiation
of the contract,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>iii.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the place of
performance,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>iv.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the location of the
subject matter of the contract, and<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 2in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>v.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">the domicile, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">e.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">If the place of
negotiating the contract and the place of performance are in the same state,
the law of that state will usually apply, except as provided in the sections
regarding specific kinds of contracts (e.g. contracts relating to the transfer
of interests in land or chattel, life, fire, surety or casualty insurance,
contracts of suretyship, repayment of loans, services, or transportation). In
those sections, the Restatement directs application of a specific state’s law
subject to the “significant relationship” test of Section 6.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">New York courts employ,
relatively consistently, a version of the “significant relationship” test,
applying the law of the state with the greatest concern for the specific issue. <i>Babcock
v. Jackson</i>, 12 N.Y.2d 473 (1963).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">D.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The
“governmental interest analysis” test:</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Many states are moving
to, or already incorporate, some version of the government interest analysis
test which is in some measure incorporated in the “substantial relationship”
test of the Second Restatement. California uses this test in determining the
law applicable to tort claims.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The law of the forum is
presumed to apply unless a party demonstrates otherwise. <i>Washington
Mut. Bank v. Superior Court</i>, 15 P.3d 1071, 1080 (2001). The burden of proof
is on the proponent of the non-U.S. law to show that it “<i>materially differs</i>”
from the forum and that applying the non-U.S. law will further the interest of
the non-U.S. jurisdiction. <i>Id</i>. The non-U.S. law is presumed to be
the same as the law of the forum absent a showing to the contrary. <i>United
States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.</i>, 648 F.2d 642, 647 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)
Absent the non-U.S. law proponent carrying its burden, the forum law governs. <i>In
re Seagate Tech. Sec. Litig.</i>, 115 F.R.D. 264, 269 (N.D. Cal. 1987).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The government interest
analysis is a three step one. First, the court determines whether the non-U.S.
law differs from that of the forum. If not, there is no conflict, and the forum
law applies.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The non-U.S. law that is
invoked must “materially differ” from the forum law. <i>Garamendi v.
Mission Ins. Co.</i>, 131 Cal. App. 4th 30, 41, 31 (2005) (absent a showing of
“conflicting authority” in the non-U.S. jurisdictions, the forum law applies)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Laws are “materially
different” if their application would lead to different results. <i>Costco
Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1200 (S.D.
Cal. 2007).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Second, if there is a
difference, the court examines each jurisdiction’s interest in the application
of its own law to determine whether a “true conflict” exists. If not, and only
one jurisdiction actually has a governmental interest in having its laws apply,
there is only a “false conflict” and the law of the interested jurisdiction
will apply.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">But even where the
forum’s interest is too weak to sustain its side of a “true conflict,” the
non-U.S. state must still be shown to have its own legitimate interest in
applying its laws. <i>McGhee v. Arabian Am. Oil Co.</i>, 871 F.2d 1412,
1424 (9th Cir. 1989).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Where neither state has
an interest in applying its laws, the laws of the forum will apply.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Third, if there is a
“true conflict” and each jurisdiction has a legitimate interest in the
application of its rule of decision, then the court analyzes the “comparative
impairment” of the interested jurisdictions to identify the law of the state
whose interest would be the more impaired if its law were not applied.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The analysis does not
involve weighing the government interests in the sense of determining which law
is worthier or best, but as a process of allocating respective “spheres of
lawmaking influence.” <i>Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co.</i>,
583 P.2d 721, 726 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 1978); <i>McGhee v. Arabian Am. Oil Co.</i>,
871 F.2d 1412, 1422 (9th Cir. 1989).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">In determining the
policies and interests of a non-U.S. state, courts – looking to case law or
legislative histories – may make their own determinations independent of what
the parties demonstrate. <i>See Offshore Rental</i>, 583 P.2d at 725, n.5.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">c.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The courts will consider
the various contacts in determining which state has the greater interest and
would suffer the greater impairment, such as the <i>situs</i> of the
injury, the <i>situs</i> of the wrongful conduct, the domicile and
business of the parties, and the place of contracting.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">6.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The governmental
interest analysis considers what is in the competing states’ public policy
interests. Where a non-U.S. law violates the forum state’s public policy, that
law will not be applied. <i>Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enter. Co.</i>,
118 Cal. App. 4th 531, 543 (“the forum state will not apply the law of another
state to enforce a contract if to do so would violate the public policy of the
forum state.”)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">For example, recognizing
strict liability of manufacturers and compensating injured parties for pain and
suffering are public policies of California that will be recognized over
non-U.S. law. <i>Kasel v. Remington Arms Co.</i>, 24 Cal. App. 3d 711, 735
& n.28 (2d Dist. 1972).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">7.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The governmental
interest approach requires a separate analysis with respect to each issue. <i>Beech
Aircraft v. Superior Court</i>, 132 Cal. Rptr. 541, 550 (Cal. App. 1976).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">8.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">The courts will
determine the relative commitment of the respective states to the law involved,
whether the policy underlying the law was more strongly held in the past than
now, and whether the law is attenuated and anachronistic. <i>Offshore
Rental</i>, 583 P.2d at 726.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 1in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">9.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Courts performing the
comparative impairment analysis also consider the modern pertinence of the
underlying policy of the competing laws, and whether the policy can be
satisfied by some other means (e.g. insurance satisfies the purpose of providing
compensation to tort victims instead of laws permitting a broader range of tort
claims).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">E.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">Changing residency after
the wrongful conduct will have no bearing on the choice of law analysis, as
court do not want to encourage forum shopping. <i>Reich v. Purcell</i>,
432 P.2d 727, 730 (Cal. 1967).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:15pt 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">F.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">When more than two
jurisdictions are involved, once a party has invoked the choice of law
analysis, the interests of all potentially affected jurisdiction are
considered. States with similar laws may be grouped together for purposes of
the comparative impairment step of the analysis. Among the states that are
grouped as one, it is the state with the real interest in the outcome of the
litigation whose impairment will be measured against that of a conflicting
state. <i>Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 472 F.
Supp. 2d 1183, 1199 (S.D. Cal. 2007).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"> </span></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><p style="margin-top:0px" dir="ltr">Apologies Kavouss. . I just used Caps to distinguish my comments not to shout. </p><span class="gmail-">
<div id="gmail-m_4039961687442416923mail-app-auto-default-signature">
<p dir="ltr">--<br> Paul Rosenzweig<br> Sent from myMail app for Android</p>
</div></span>Monday, 30 January 2017, 03:43PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>:<div><div class="gmail-h5"><br><br><blockquote id="gmail-m_4039961687442416923mail-app-auto-quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(252,44,56);margin:0px 0px 0px 10px;padding:0px 0px 0px 10px" cite="http://14858090090000119520">
<div class="gmail-m_4039961687442416923js-helper gmail-m_4039961687442416923js-readmsg-msg">
<div>
<div id="gmail-m_4039961687442416923style_14858090090000119520_BODY"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Paul,</div><div>Thank you very much.</div><div>Two things</div><div>1. You said that </div><div><font face="Calibri" size="3">You were "Dealing with the immigration “crisis” in the US is occupying my time"</font></div><div><font face="Calibri" size="3"> <font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">I was also
struggling with the same issue.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">In regard
with your reply, while I appreciate that , I am not convinced with the
responses given for two reasons.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">One you
replied in CAP ( upper case) that according to ICANN rules is considered that
you were shouting.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">Second, while I appreciate
your professional quality as a respectful and esteemed professor at several universities,
former Deputy to Assistance Secretary and author of those controversial
comments relating to IANA Transition, your responses were not convincing.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">I did expect a more
thorough analysis from you as a eminent lawyer</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">Anyhow, thank you indeed
for the time and efforts spent on the matter.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">I hope in future you would
kindly use lower case and not shouting to me.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">Best regards</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt">Kavouss <span></span></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font></font></div></div><div><br><div>2017-01-30 16:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Dear Kavouss<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">As promised. My responses are below (I’ve cut and pasted your questions back here at the top) in CAPS<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">My Questions are</span><u></u><u></u></p><span><ol type="a" style="margin-top:0in" start="1"><li style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;color:blue;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">What do you mean by </span><i><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">(</span></i><i><span style="color:red;font-family:arial,sans-serif">the substantive law to apply?</span></i><i><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">)</span></i><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></li></ol><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:blue;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></span><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:blue;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I MEAN THE LAW THAT WILL BE USED TO DECIDE THE CASE. FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY BE AGAINST THE LAW, IN SAY, INDIA, FOR ICANN TO REFUSE TO PUBLISH ITS FINANCIAL DATA PUBLICLY (I AM MAKING THIS EXAMPLE UP OF COURSE – I DON’T KNOW WHAT INDIAN LAW IS). IF THE COURT OR ARBITRATOR HEARING THE CASE DECIDED THAT INDIAN LAW WAS THE APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE LAW, IT WOULD THEN HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ICANN WAS VIOLATING THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT INDIAN LAW REQUIRES AND WHETHER OR NOT ICANN HAD COMPLIED. THE INDIAN LAW HERE WOULD BE THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW TO APPLY TO THE CASE.<u></u><u></u></span></p><span><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><u></u> <u></u></p><ol type="a" style="margin-top:0in" start="2"><li style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;color:black;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">If the parties made a choice of law , say e.g. Swiss Law, should the case be sent to a Swiss Court or as you said the case still would be treated by the Court to which it was submitted but the Court merely applies Swiss Law.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></span><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">THAT VERY MUCH DEPENDS ON WHERE THE SUIT IS BROUGHT AND WHAT ELSE THE PARTIES HAVE SAID. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PARTIES COULD SAY “SWISS LAW APPLIES BUT THE CASE WILL BE HEARD IN LONDON ARBITRATION” OR “SWISS LAW APPLIES AND THE CASE SHOULD BE IN SWISS COURT” FOR THE SECOND OF THESE, IF SOMEONE BROUGHT A SUIT IN THE US COURTS ANYWAY, THE US COURTS WOULD GENERALLY DEFER TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT AND DISMISS THE CASE WITH DIRECTION TO REFILE IT IN SWITZERLAND. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE LAW WOULD BE IF THE SUIT WERE IN INDIA OR IRAN OR THE UK OR FRANCE THOUGH. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">THE HARDER QUESTION IS WHEN THE PARTIES SAY THAT “SWISS LAW APPLIES” BUT THEY DON’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHERE THE COURT CASE SHOULD BE. THEN THE COURTS WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE – IN THE US THAT DECISION WOULD BE BASED ON QUESTIONS OF CONVENIENCE (WHERE ARE THE WITNESSES, FOR EXAMPLE?) AND OTHER SIMILARLY EQUITABLE QUESTIONS. AGAIN, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW AN INDIAN/IRANIAN/UK/FRENCH COURT WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION.<u></u><u></u></span></p><span><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><u></u> <u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">In the latter case, to what extent the Court could claim that it is fully familiar to all details of Swiss Law</span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">? Take the extreme case that there would agreements for 20, 30 ... choice of Law for 20, 30 different cases. Do you believe that the Court in question would be familiar with the details of all 20, 30 Laws ? I find it very difficult that ,e.g. a State Court in any country would have such vast knowledge of all laws that mentioned above<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></span><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">IF A COURT KEPT A CASE BUT HAD TO APPLY SWISS LAW, THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO BE EDUCATED IN THE LAW. THAT MIGHT BE BY THE PARTIES OR THE COURT MIGHT ASK AN EXPERT. IN THE US WE ALSO HAVE A PROCESS (NOT USED THAT OFTEN) WHERE THE US COURT COULD CERTIFY THE QUESTION TO A SWISS COURT AND ASK IT FOR THE ANSWER. THE DIFFICULTY IN LEARNING THE LAW IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE EQUITABLE FACTORS THAT MIGHT MAKE A US COURT TRANSFER THE CASE TO SWITZERLAND IF THE PARTIES HAVE NOT SPECIFIED THAT IN CONTRACT TO STAY IN THE US.<u></u><u></u></span></p><span><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><u></u> <u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">c) If case that there is no previously agreed for a choice of Law, why it would not be possible that the parties be asked for the choice of Law before the Court in question starts discussing the case.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">An extreme situation of that was the case of "Y" that the defendant had no information that at a given date a plaintiff would submit a case to any Court thus there was possibility to choose a given Law. Then wouldn't it be logical that both parties be given the opportunity to choose a given Law?</span><u></u><u></u></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></span><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">USUALLY, PARTIES MAKE THE CHOICE OF LAW BEFORE HAND WHEN THEY ENTER A CONTRACT. IF THEY DON’T THEN IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THEY WILL AGREE WHEN THE LAW SUIT STARTS – AFTER ALL, THEY ARE NOW FIGHTING IN COURT AND I ASSUME THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES WILL LOOK AT IT AND SAY “I WIN UNDER SWISS LAW” AND THE OTHER WILL SAY TO ITSELF “SINCE WE MAY LOSE UNDER SWISS LAW, LETS ASK FOR INDIAN LAW.” IF THE PARTIES WERE IN AGREEMENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW, A US COURT WOULD PROBABLY HONOR THAT AGREEMENT – BUT IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT THEY WOULD DISAGREE.<u></u><u></u></span></p><span><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul Rosenzweig<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">O: <a value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">M: <a value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">VOIP: <a value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">My PGP Key: </span><a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">https://keys.mailvelope.com/<wbr>pks/lookup?op=get&search=<wbr>0x9A830097CA066684</span></a><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></span><p><b><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> Kavouss Arasteh [<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.<wbr>com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:27 AM<br><b>To:</b> Mathieu Weill <<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</a>>; Mueller, Milton L <<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amilton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>>; ws2-jurisdiction <<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Case summary - 2 drafts for your review<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><p><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Dear All.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">I agree with most of you in analysis that were done.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">However, I tend to agree with Mathieu in the need to assess</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle"><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">-</span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></u><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Whether there was actually an impact</span></u><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle"><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">-</span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></u><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Whether there would have been an impact if the case had been decided, or would be decided in the future, against ICANN (potential impact)</span></u><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">and any subsequent actions that may be required to follow.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">In reply to the first reaction by Paul, when he concluded </span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Quote</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><i><span style="color:blue;font-family:arial,sans-serif">"1.One section of the form refers to “Choice of Law/Governing Law” – I think that in filling this out we risk conflating two distinct legal issues – what law governs the dispute (</span></i><i><span style="color:red;font-family:arial,sans-serif">the substantive law to apply</span></i><i><span style="color:blue;font-family:arial,sans-serif">) and what law controls choosing the governing law (i.e. procedurally, what choice of law rules govern choosing the applicable law). For example, a law suit in California state will often apply California state law in deciding what law to choose to govern the dispute – but that California law may often result in identifying the governing law as the law of some other jurisdiction. A perfect example is a contract dispute that says “this contract is governed by the laws of France.” California law on choosing law says “the choice of the parties in a contract should be given effect” and so a law suit between two parties in California would result in the California court using French law to resolve the dispute. In your two cases this made a difference in the Verisign case where California law applied to choose law, but the choice was Federal antitrust. I think we should distinguish between them"</span></i><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">My Questions are</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">a) What do you mean by </span><i><span style="color:blue;font-family:arial,sans-serif">(</span></i><i><span style="color:red;font-family:arial,sans-serif">the substantive law to apply?</span></i><i><span style="color:blue;font-family:arial,sans-serif">)</span></i><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">b) If the parties made a choice of law , say e.g. Swiss Law, should the case be sent to a Swiss Court or as you said the case still would be treated by the Court to which it was submitted but the Court merely applies Swiss Law.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-family:arial,sans-serif">In the latter case, to what extent the Court could claim that it is fully familiar to all details of Swiss Law</span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">? Take the extreme case that there would agreements for 20, 30 ... choice of Law for 20, 30 different cases. Do you believe that the Court in question would be familiar with the details of all 20, 30 Laws ? I find it very difficult that ,e.g. a State Court in any country would have such vast knowledge of all laws that mentioned above</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">c) If case that there is no previously agreed for a choice of Law, why it would not be possible that the parties be asked for the choice of Law before the Court in question starts discussing the case.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:arial,sans-serif">An extreme situation of that was the case of "Y" that the defendant had no information that at a given date a plaintiff would submit a case to any Court thus there was possibility to choose a given Law. Then wouldn't it be logical that both parties be given the opportunity to choose a given Law?</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p>2017-01-28 1:34 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt"><div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Thanks for raising this point Paul, </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">This is indeed a question that I faced trying this out. We need an approach that is consistent across all cases, and as you point out, even when cases may not end up being decided against ICANN, there can be an effect. </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">So my suggestion is to assess :</span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">-</span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:7pt"> </span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Whether there was actually an impact</span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">-</span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-size:7pt"> </span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Whether there would have been an impact if the case had been decided, or would be decided in the future, against ICANN (potential impact)</span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">It’s going to be another phase of our work to determine which lessons we draw from the cases, and whether we believe it’s appropriate to take these potential impacts into account within the work of our group. If, by then, we want to exclude the “potential impact” sections, we’ll do so, but at the data collection level, when we fill the form, I think we should include this piece of information. </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Best</span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Mathieu</span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p><b><span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">De :</span></b><span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:</span><a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">] <br><b>Envoyé :</b> vendredi 27 janvier 2017 17:01<br><b>À :</b> 'Mueller, Milton L'; 'Mathieu Weill'; </span><a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><br><b>Objet :</b> RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Case summary - 2 drafts for your review</span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p> <span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p>I agree with Milton. By contrast, for example, the DotAfrica case is relevant as it reflects an instance where the legal system did have an effect on ICANN’s actions (that’s a statement of fact – not an assertion that the effect was good or bad). The question in the end will be what those effects are; whether they are adverse; and if changing to another jurisdiction would make the situation worse or better<span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p> <span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p>Paul<span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p> <span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p>Paul Rosenzweig<span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p>O: <a>+1 (202) 547-0660</a><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p>M: <a>+1 (202) 329-9650</a><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p>VOIP: <a>+1 (202) 738-1739</a><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p>My PGP Key: <a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://keys.mailvelope.com/<wbr>pks/lookup?op=get&search=<wbr>0x9A830097CA066684</span></a><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p> <span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p><b>From:</b> Mueller, Milton L [mailto:<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amilton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 27, 2017 10:36 AM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</a>>; 'Mathieu Weill' <<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>; <a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Case summary - 2 drafts for your review<span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p> <span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">I have to agree mostly with Paul on this:</span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt"><p style="margin-left:0.5in">In the “Effect on our Work” section I wonder at how you handled it. For me, the answer in the Arizona case would be “none” since the suit was dismissed early. To be sure you write of its potential effect – which had it succceded would have been significant. But that gives too much credit to the filing of a suit doesn’t it? Shouldn’t our inquiry be whether or not the exisiting legal system adequately protects our work from non-meritorious interference. And so, shouldn’t the Arizona case be a good sign that, at least in this case, the court reached a result that had no impact?<span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">That case was a desperation delaying act that had no real legal basis, which the court quickly recognized. Apparently the plaintiffs realized it was groundless too - which is why they abandoned the case after failing to get the injunction. In others words, this was an attempt to use legal procedure to delay an outcome until the political situation changed, not a challenge based on the specific characteristics of US or Calif law. Unless one can argue that the U.S. jurisdiction is uniquely prone to these kinds of tricks working (and here I leave it to people with more comparative law experience than me), I don’t think the case is relevant. </span><span lang="FR"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br><a href="https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div><p><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>