Page 1. THE COMMON CORE OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW Mistake, Fraud and Duties to inform in European c... more Page 1. THE COMMON CORE OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW Mistake, Fraud and Duties to inform in European contract Law EDITED BY RUTH SEFTON-GREEN Cambridge Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Good Faith in European ...
Private international law presumes, and responds to, plurality—of laws, and of values. How does i... more Private international law presumes, and responds to, plurality—of laws, and of values. How does it then respond to ideas about universal values? In fact, the question involves three tensions—between formalism and values, between private international law and substantive law, and between plurality and universality. Private international law cannot isolate itself from questions of value, but how should it account for them? Attempts to explicitly take on conflicts of laws as conflicts of substantive values, as for example in the better law theory, have intrinsic weaknesses. Attempts to resolve such conflicts in the name of universal conflicts values are more promising. But existing conflicts values are in conflict among themselves, and there is no set of meta-values that can resolve these conflicts. Ultimately, the chapter suggests two universal values that are specific to conflict of laws: responsivity, and technicality.
This chapter studies Section 405 of the Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law. According to... more This chapter studies Section 405 of the Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law. According to Section 405, “courts in the United States may interpret federal statutory provisions to include other limitations on their applicability.” This rather vague and noncommittal phrase is found in a provision entitled “Reasonableness in Interpretation.” The reference to reasonableness suggests continuity with the Third Restatement of Foreign Relations Law, in particular its Section 403, which prohibited the “unreasonable” exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction. However, those provisions differ quite significantly with respect to the source, content, and operation of that limitation. In particular, the Fourth Restatement rejects the idea that courts are required to determine the reasonableness of extraterritorial application of law on a case-by-case basis. The chapter presents two main arguments, one empirical and one normative. Empirically, a reasonableness requirement is part of existing case law, even though it appears under a range of different doctrinal headings. Normatively, such a requirement is necessary to achieve an adequate balance between under—and overregulation in a world of overlapping regulatory claims.
Page 1. THE COMMON CORE OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW Mistake, Fraud and Duties to inform in European c... more Page 1. THE COMMON CORE OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW Mistake, Fraud and Duties to inform in European contract Law EDITED BY RUTH SEFTON-GREEN Cambridge Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Good Faith in European ...
Private international law presumes, and responds to, plurality—of laws, and of values. How does i... more Private international law presumes, and responds to, plurality—of laws, and of values. How does it then respond to ideas about universal values? In fact, the question involves three tensions—between formalism and values, between private international law and substantive law, and between plurality and universality. Private international law cannot isolate itself from questions of value, but how should it account for them? Attempts to explicitly take on conflicts of laws as conflicts of substantive values, as for example in the better law theory, have intrinsic weaknesses. Attempts to resolve such conflicts in the name of universal conflicts values are more promising. But existing conflicts values are in conflict among themselves, and there is no set of meta-values that can resolve these conflicts. Ultimately, the chapter suggests two universal values that are specific to conflict of laws: responsivity, and technicality.
This chapter studies Section 405 of the Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law. According to... more This chapter studies Section 405 of the Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law. According to Section 405, “courts in the United States may interpret federal statutory provisions to include other limitations on their applicability.” This rather vague and noncommittal phrase is found in a provision entitled “Reasonableness in Interpretation.” The reference to reasonableness suggests continuity with the Third Restatement of Foreign Relations Law, in particular its Section 403, which prohibited the “unreasonable” exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction. However, those provisions differ quite significantly with respect to the source, content, and operation of that limitation. In particular, the Fourth Restatement rejects the idea that courts are required to determine the reasonableness of extraterritorial application of law on a case-by-case basis. The chapter presents two main arguments, one empirical and one normative. Empirically, a reasonableness requirement is part of existing case law, even though it appears under a range of different doctrinal headings. Normatively, such a requirement is necessary to achieve an adequate balance between under—and overregulation in a world of overlapping regulatory claims.
Uploads