Contracting Parties: Choosing State Law?

Contracting parties can choose the law of a particular state to govern their contract, and this is known as a choice of law or governing law provision. This is especially important in international contracts, where the differences in legal cultures can be significant. For example, a contract between two American companies located in California and Texas respectively would need to specify which state's laws would apply in the event of a dispute. The choice of governing law can have a significant impact on how contracts are enforced and interpreted, and it is essential to nominate a governing law to avoid costly legal battles.

Parties can choose a neutral forum foreign to both parties but considered fair

Contracting parties can choose the law of a particular state, and this is known as a "choice of law" or "governing law" provision in a contract. This allows the parties to agree that a particular state's laws will be used to interpret the agreement, even if they live in or the agreement is signed in a different state. For example, a contract between two American companies located in California and Texas, respectively, could specify that any disputes will be decided under California or Texas law.

The choice of law provision is especially important in international contracts, where parties desire certainty about where they will litigate and under what law. In such cases, it is generally advisable to pick a jurisdiction that the parties are connected to, such as where their business is located or where production is handled. For instance, New York is a popular choice for non-U.S. companies, especially if the agreement is also governed by New York law.

However, there are times when contracting parties cannot agree on a choice of forum. In these cases, one option is to omit a choice of forum provision and hope that a dispute leading to litigation does not occur. Another option is to select a "neutral" forum that is foreign to both parties but considered fair by each. This can provide certainty about the location of litigation arising out of a contractual relationship.

It is important to carefully consider the potential risks and rewards of designating a forum, as the legal and political environment of the chosen forum may change over time. Additionally, the choice of forum may have a greater impact on the outcome of a dispute than the choice of law, as there can be significant procedural differences between jurisdictions. For example, the availability of pretrial discovery and the mode of taking evidence can be outcome-determinative. Therefore, the drafting attorney should be aware of the nuances involved in choosing a forum and ensure that the contract is well-drafted to provide certainty for the parties involved.

Choice of law provisions determine which state's law will govern any disputes

Choice of law provisions, also known as "governing law" provisions, are essential clauses in a contract that allow parties to agree on a particular state's laws to interpret the agreement, regardless of where the parties reside or where the agreement is signed. This provision is especially crucial in cross-border disputes, where a court must determine whether to apply domestic or foreign law. For example, a U.S. court presiding over a contract dispute between a U.S. company and a Canadian company will decide whether to apply U.S. or Canadian contract law.

The choice of law provision helps establish which state's laws will govern any disputes arising from the contract. This is particularly important when the contract involves parties from different states or countries, as state laws can vary significantly, and the choice of law can impact the outcome of a case. For instance, a contract between a California company and a Texas company would require the choice of law provision to determine whether California or Texas law would be applied in the event of a dispute.

When drafting a contract, lawyers must carefully consider the choice of law provision to avoid potential challenges. For example, certain states, like Massachusetts, prohibit choice of law provisions in insurance contracts to ensure their consumer protection laws apply within their borders. Additionally, contracts involving secured transactions and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) may conflict with choice-of-law rules. In such cases, the law of the state of incorporation typically governs corporate behaviour.

The selection of the state for jurisdiction can be more critical than the choice of law itself, as it determines where disputes will be resolved. While the choice of law indicates which state's law will be used to decide the dispute, the jurisdiction is the physical location where the dispute will be heard and resolved. This distinction is important, as a contract may require lawsuits to be filed in one state but decided under another state's laws.

When negotiating a contract, parties may need to consult with lawyers versed in different legal systems, especially in international agreements, to ensure the choice of law aligns with the nature of the relationship and the subject matter of the contract. For example, if the contract involves products, New York's strong non-compete laws may be beneficial, while France's stronger data privacy laws may be more relevant if the work is primarily conducted online. Ultimately, the choice of law provision is a critical aspect of any contract, ensuring clarity and predictability in the event of disputes.

Parties can opt out of the CISG, in which case the UCC would apply

In the United States, parties to a commercial contract that would typically be governed by the CISG (United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods) are permitted to opt out of the CISG. In such cases, the applicable provisions of the pertinent state's adoption of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) would apply. This is in line with the "freedom of contract" approach that is prevalent in the US.

The CISG is one of the most widely adopted commercial law treaties in the world, serving as an "international" version of Article 2 of the UCC. It provides the governing law for many cross-border agreements involving the sale of goods. However, the CISG and UCC differ in several ways, and attorneys must be well-versed in both to effectively represent their clients. For instance, under the UCC, an offer to purchase goods is accepted by mailing the acceptance, while under the CISG, an acceptance must be received within the time stated in the offer.

To opt out of the CISG, parties must include clear and exclusive language in their contracts expressly stating their intention. Simply stating that the law of a certain state applies is insufficient. For example, a phrase such as "but excluding the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" or "This contract shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on the International Sales of Goods" should be added after the chosen state's law to indicate the exclusion of the CISG.

The selection of a particular state's law as the governing law in a contract is a crucial aspect. It determines which state's laws will be used to interpret the agreement and resolve disputes, even if the parties or the location of the agreement signing are in different states. This "choice of law" provision allows parties to agree on a specific state's laws to govern their contractual relationship. For instance, many large corporations choose Delaware law in their contracts due to its business-friendly laws and predictability in disputes.

In conclusion, while parties can opt out of the CISG and have the UCC apply, it is important for attorneys to carefully consider the implications and differences between the two legal frameworks to best serve their clients' interests.

The choice of governing law dictates legal requirements such as contract formation, performance, and termination

Contracting parties can choose the law of a particular state to govern their contract, even if they live in or sign the contract in a different state. This is known as a "choice of law" or "governing law" provision. It allows parties to agree that a specific state's laws will be used to interpret the contract in the event of a dispute. For instance, a contract between two American companies located in California and Texas, respectively, would require the governing law to determine which state's laws would be applied in the event of a breach.

The choice of governing law is crucial as it dictates the legal requirements and framework for the contract, including contract formation, performance, and termination. For example, New York's strong non-compete laws or France's robust data privacy laws may be beneficial depending on the nature of the contract and the relationship between the parties. The governing law also impacts the enforcement of contracts and the resolution of disputes.

When drafting a contract, it is essential to consider the choice of law provision carefully. While some contracts may have a simple choice of law provision, others may require a more elaborate approach. The relative bargaining power of the parties may also influence the choice of governing law, with the party possessing more bargaining power potentially able to choose the law of their place of business as the governing law.

Additionally, the choice of law provision can have implications for the jurisdiction of disputes. While the governing law indicates which state's law will be used to decide a dispute, the jurisdiction refers to where the dispute will be resolved. For example, a contract may require lawsuits to be filed in California but decided under New York law. In such cases, the parties would need to go to New York to resolve the dispute.

Contracting parties should consult experienced attorneys to ensure they choose the most appropriate governing law for their specific circumstances.

Parties should choose a governing law they are familiar with and that facilitates performing the contract

Contracting parties can choose the law of a particular state to govern their contract. This is known as a "choice of law" or "governing law" provision in a contract. It allows the parties to agree that a specific state's laws will be used to interpret the agreement, regardless of where the parties live or where the agreement is signed. For example, a contract between two American companies located in California and Texas, respectively, could choose to have California law govern their contract. This would mean that California law would be applied to resolve any disputes between the parties.

When selecting a governing law, it is generally advisable to choose a jurisdiction that you are connected to, such as where your business is located or where production is handled. This is important because each legal system is likely to have certain provisions that parties cannot eliminate in their contracts. For example, New York has recently banned mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims. Additionally, parties should consider the nature of the relationship between the parties and the subject matter of the contract. If there are products involved, New York's strong non-compete laws may be beneficial. If the work is primarily undertaken online, France's stronger data privacy laws may be more important.

It is also crucial to consider the enforceability of the contract. The chosen governing law should facilitate performing the contract rather than impede it. Parties' familiarity with the governing law is essential in this regard. The location of each party and the place where the contract will be performed will influence their familiarity with the law. The relative bargaining power of the parties also plays a role. Typically, the party with more bargaining power may choose the law of their place of business as the governing law and jurisdiction for bringing any claims.

Furthermore, contracting parties should be mindful of any conflicts between the chosen governing law and federal law. In many cases, mandatory rules of federal law will apply regardless of party intent. However, when federal law provisions are mere default rules, an interpretive question arises. Did the parties intend to select state law to the exclusion of the federal default rule, or did they intend to select the federal default rule as an alternative to state law? This question commonly arises with respect to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

Frequently asked questions