In Reich v. Purcell, Chief Justice Traynor of the Supreme Court of California, a devotee of interest analysis, states, ease of determining applicable law and uniformity of rules of decision, however, must be subordinated to the objective of proper choice of law in conflict cases, i.e., to determine the law that most appropriately applies to the issue involved. After a claim arises, clear choice-of-law rules facilitate settlement and reduce the costs of litigation.16 For the same efficiency reasons, lawand-economics scholars would permit contracting parties complete freedom in choosing the law to apply to their transaction.17 Some would permit no judge-made exceptions to enforcement of choice-of-law agreements and reserve to legislatures the power to indicate what mandatory rules are not subject to avoidance.18 Most law-and-economics scholars find modern approaches to choice of law unpredictable, chaotic,19 and prejudiced in favor of plaintiffs and forum law.20 They reject any analysis that focuses on the purposes of underlying conflicting rules because of the difficulty of determining those purposes.21 III.
The Choice-of-Law Rules of the
Pages to are hidden for
"The Choice-of-Law Rules of the European Community Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: Simple and Predictable, Consequences-Based, or Neither?*"Please download to view full document