- For a historical background, see J Gordley, Foundations of Private Law: Property, Tort, Contract, Unjust Enrichment (Oxford University Press, 2006), 152–81, a comparative study was provided by Ch von Bar and U Drobnig, The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe: A Comparative Study (Sellier European Law Publishers, 2004), 25.
- A Burrows, Understanding the Law of Obligations. Essays on Contract, Tort and Restitution (Hart Publishing, 1998), 1–15.
- R Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford University Press, 1996), 10–31.
- See generally T Weir, “Complex Liabilities” in A Tunc (ed), International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol IX: Torts, part 2 (Mohr Siebeck & Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983), 3; von Bar and Drobnig, supra n 1, 189–210.
- Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) [2008] OJ L177/6; Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), [2007] OJ 2007 L199/40.
- Convincingly R Fentiman, “The Signifi cance of Close Connection” in J Ahern (ed), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-contractual Obligations. A New International Litigation Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 85, 108: “uniformity in this context does not mean normative uniformity–uniform rules across the Community–but uniformity of outcome”.
- Case 29/76, LTY Lufttransportunternehmen GmbH v Eurocontrol [1976] ECR 1541, [3]; Case 189/87, Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst & Co [1988] ECR 5565, [16]; Case C-89/91, Shearson Lehman Hutton v TVB Treuhandgesellschaft für Vermögensverwaltung und Beteiligungen mbH [1993] ECR I-139, [3]; Case C-443/03, Leffer v Berlin Chemie AG [2005] ECR I-9611, [45].
- See U Magnus, “Article 4 Rome I Regulation: The Applicable Law in the Absence of Choice” in F Ferrari and S Leible (eds), Rome I Regulation. The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Europe (Sellier European Law Publishers, 2009), 27, 33.
- Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernisation, 14 January 2003, COM(2002) 654 final, 9.
- [2007] OJ L199/40, Preamble [11].
- K von Savigny, System des heutigen römischen Rechts, vol VIII (Verlag Veit & Co, 1849), 108.
- A Briggs, “Choice of Choice of Law” [2003] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 12, 31.
- E Rabel, The conflict of Laws. A Comparative Study, vol 1 (Michigan Legal Publications, 1958), 72.
- Ibid.
- A Dickinson, The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-contractual Obligations (Oxford University Press, 2008), 136–37.
- W Wengler, Das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch. Kommentar, Band I V. Internationales Privatrecht, vol 1 (Walter de Gruyter, 1981), 133.
- 17 “Article 12 Scope of the law applicable 1. The law applicable to a contract by virtue of this Regulation shall govern in particular:…(e) the consequences of nullity of the contract.”
- 18 “Article 10 Scope of applicable law 1. The law applicable to a contract by virtue of Articles 3 to 6 and 12 of this Convention shall govern in particular:…(e) the consequences of nullity of the contract.”
- E Rabel, “Das Problem der Qualifi kation” (1931) 5 Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 241, 273.
- H Stoll, “Materielle Anspruchskonkurrenz und Konkurrenz von Vertrags- und Deliktsstatut im internationalen Privatrecht” in H-E Rasmussen-Bonne, R Freer, W Lüke and W Weitnauer (eds), Balancing of Interests. Liber Amicorum Peter Hay zum 70. Geburtstag (Verlag Recht und Wirt-schaft, 2005), 403, 408–09.
- 21 “Article 10 Scope of applicable law 1. The law applicable to a contract by virtue of Articles 3 to 6 and 12 of this Convention shall govern in particular: (a) interpretation; (b) performance; (c) within the limits of the powers conferred on the court by its procedural law, the consequences of breach, including the assessment of damages in so far as it is governed by rules of law; (d) the various ways of extinguishing obligations, and prescription and limitation of actions; (e) the consequences of nullity of the contract.”
- 22 “Article 12 Scope of the law applicable 1. The law applicable to a contract by virtue of this Regulation shall govern in particular: (a) interpretation; (b) performance; (c) within the limits of the powers conferred on the court by its procedural law, the consequences of a total or partial breach of obligations, including the assessment of damages in so far as it is governed by rules of law; (d) the various ways of extinguishing obligations, and prescription and limitation of actions; (e) the consequences of nullity of the contract.”
- “Article 15 Scope of the law applicable The law applicable to non-contractual obligations under this Regulation shall govern in particular: (a) the basis and extent of liability, including the determination of persons who may be held liable for acts performed by them; (b) the grounds for exemption from liability, any limitation of liability and any division of liability;…(e) the question whether a right to claim damages or a remedy may be transferred, including by inheritance; (f) persons entitled to compensation for damage sustained personally; (g) liability for the actions of another person; (h) the manner in which an obligation may be extinguished and rules of prescription and limitation, including rules relating to the commencement, interruption and suspension of a period of prescription or limitation.”
- J Edelman and J Davies, “Torts and Equitable Wrongs” in A Burrows (ed), English Private Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), 1185, 1187.
- Weir, supra n 4, 5.5.
- Cass Civ of 11 January 1922, Recueil de jurisprudence Dalloz of 16 January 1922, Recueil Sirey of 15 January 1924.
- G Viney, “Tort Liability” in GA Bermann and E Picard (eds), Introduction to French Law (Kluwer Law International 2008), 243.
- RG of 19 June 1916, [1916] Reichsgericht in Zivilsachen 88, 317.
- Second Compensation Amendment Act of 19 July 2002 (Zweites Gesetz zur Änderung schadensersatzrechtlicher Vorschriften, Bundesgesetzblatt I Nr 50 of 25 July 2002, 2674); in force since 1 August 2002 changed § 253 of German Civil Code, which now reads as follows: “(1) Money may be demanded in compensation for any damage that is not a pecuniary loss only in the cases stipulated by law. (2) If damages are to be paid for an injury to the body, health, freedom or sexual self-determination, reasonable compensation in money may also be demanded for any damage that is not a pecuniary loss.”
- E Kramer in J Basedow (ed), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 2: Schuldrecht Allgemeiner Teil (CH Beck, 2007), 62, see also H Sprau in Palandt Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (CH Beck, 2007), 1288.
- For example, the limitation of actions: see F Peters and FJ Staudinger, J von Staudingers Kommen-tar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 2009, commentary to § 195, numbers 30–33, http://beck-online.beck.de.
- For example, the liability of a freight forwarder (Spediteur): see P Bydlinski in B Czerwenka and R Herber (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch, Band 7: Viertes Buch. Handelsge-schäfte (CH Beck, 2009), 574–75.
- It states: “A debtor is liable only for damages which were foreseen or which could have been foreseen at the time of the contract, where it is not through his own intentional breach that the obligation is not fulfilled.” Other reasons why the French legal system does not accept concurrence of actions are discussed by: B Starck, H Roland and L Boyer, Droit civil. Les obligations, vol 2: Contract (Litec, 1998), 738–42; G Viney and P Jourdain, Traité de droit civil. Les conditions de la responsabilité (LGDJ, 1998), 698–710; F Terré, P Simler and Y Lequette, Droit civil. Les obligations (Dalloz, 2005), 851–53.
- HJ Sonnenberger, “Einleitung” in HJ Sonnenberger (ed), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 10: Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art 1–38). Internationales Privatrecht (CH Beck, 2006), 5, 346.
- J Kropholler, Internationales Privatrecht (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 146.
- Art 133.3 of Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law of 18 December 1987.
- Art 41.1 of the German Act Introducing the Civil Code of 18 August 1896 as amended in 1999.
- 38 Art 41.1 applies a similar wording, stating: “If there is a significantly closer connection with the law of a country other than that applicable under articles 38 to 40 subarticle 2, then the law of that other country shall apply.”
- 39 According to what has been said on characterisation, a “contract” means “a contract matter” in terms of private international law and not a contract in the meaning of a particular (English, French, etc) law. It is not necessary that the contract between parties be valid. It is only important to ascertain that the choice-of-law agreement (if at stake) is valid (that is at least the position of Swiss courts).
- Kropholler, supra n 35, 530, 531.
- Th M de Boer, “Party Autonomy and its Limitations in the Rome II Regulation” (2007) 9 Yearbook of Private International Law 19, 27.
- Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”), Brussels, 22 July 2003, COM(2003) 427 final, 12–13.
- One may wonder if, and to what extent, this passage is echoed in an earlier Opinion of the Commission–the one of 17 March 1980, [1980] OJ L94/39, which not only justifiably expressed regret for the failure of the scope of the Rome Convention to cover also non-contractual obligations, but also incorrectly conceded that it resulted in a “situation in which if an action is brought in one Contracting State it will be decided in accordance with the rules contained in the Convention, whereas if it is brought in another Contracting State it will be decided in accordance with the conflict rules of the lex fori which have not yet been unified” [1980] OJ 1980 L94/40.
- Fentiman, supra n 6, 111.
- [2007] OJ L199/41, Preamble [14]. The parallel passage of Rome I mentions legal certainty, foreseeability and “a degree of discretion to determine the law that is most closely connected to the situation” [2008] OJ L177/7, Preamble [16].
- P Nygh, Autonomy in International Contracts (Oxford University Press, 1999), 241.
- Weir, supra n 4, 6.
- [1952] 1 All ER 215, 217.
- Ibid, 217.
- Henderson v Merett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, 194.
- [1952] 1 All ER 217–18.
- Fentiman, supra n 6, 85–112.
- Accordingly, some authors admit that: ‘Where there is a mixed contract-tort situation the ‘relationship’ will usually be the contract between the parties…. It is the law of the contract on which the parties can plan their insurance. It is the law of the contract which most effectively reflects their expectations' (L Collins, “Interaction between Contract and Tort in the Conflict of Laws” in Essays in International Litigation and the conflict of Laws (Clarendon Press, 1994), 352, 391–92).
Journal of Private International Law
Volume 7, 2011 - Issue 2