[Ws2-jurisdiction] Case summary - 2 drafts for your review
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Jan 30 16:07:34 UTC 2017
It's entirlEy possible where there is a choice of law clause, but no
choice of forum (or a differEnt forum is specified) in a contract.
So, choice of law does not mean choice of jurisdication, or vice versa.
It's not at all unheard of for contracts involving a Guernsey company to
specify English law in the contract, and have disputes to be adjudicated
by the Royal Court in Guernsey. In that event, the Guernsey Court would
not apply Guernsey law, but would apply (as per the contractual
agreement), English Law.
On 30/01/17 15:38, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> Dear Kavouss
>
> As promised. My responses are below (I’ve cut and pasted your questions
> back here at the top) in CAPS
>
> My Questions are
>
> 1. What do you mean by /(//the substantive law to apply?//)/
>
> 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.
>
> 2. 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
> *From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:27 AM
> *To:* Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
> *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>; Mueller, Milton L
> <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; ws2-jurisdiction
> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Case summary - 2 drafts for your review
>
> Dear All.
>
> I agree with most of you in analysis that were done.
>
> However, I tend to agree with Mathieu in the need to assess
>
> _-__Whether there was actually an impact_
>
> _-__Whether there would have been an impact if the case had been
> decided, or would be decided in the future, against ICANN (potential
> impact)_
>
> and any subsequent actions that may be required to follow.
>
> In reply to the first reaction by Paul, when he concluded
>
> Quote
>
> /"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 (//the substantive law to apply//)
> 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"/
>
> My Questions are
>
> a) What do you mean by /(//the substantive law to apply?//)/
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 2017-01-28 1:34 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>:
>
> Thanks for raising this point Paul,
>
> 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.
>
> So my suggestion is to assess :
>
> -Whether there was actually an impact
>
> -Whether there would have been an impact if the case had been
> decided, or would be decided in the future, against ICANN (potential
> impact)
>
> 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.
>
> Best
>
> Mathieu
>
> *De :*Paul Rosenzweig
> [mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 27 janvier 2017 17:01
> *À :* 'Mueller, Milton L'; 'Mathieu Weill';
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Objet :* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Case summary - 2 drafts for your review
>
> 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
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:(202)%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
> *From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2017 10:36 AM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Mathieu Weill'
> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Case summary - 2 drafts for your
> review
>
> I have to agree mostly with Paul on this:
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list