PRIL Dec1

There are 3 distinct but interrelated concepts in PRIL
1. Jurisdiction
2. Choice of law
3. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment
*the fact that the court exercises jurisdiction, does not automatically follow that it would apply its own forum law...
*usually, in Family law cases and torts cases, courts would apply forum law instead of foreign law because of policies and values. As opposed to contract law, which most of jurisdictions share common provisions and basic principles, not value-laden laws so even if apply foreign law, as if you're applying local law…
e.g. other countries have divorce, while in Philippines, not allowed…
-these laws reflect the values of that society…
*In the world, only RP and Malta have no divorce!
VARIOUS APPROACHES
1. TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
-more territorial
-laws have effect only w/n a certain territory
2. MODERN APPROACHES
TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
1. VESTED-RIGHTS THEORY
-Which law applies: Occur in the place where the last act giving rise to a COA
e.g. torts: ACT + INJURY
If both happen in 1 state: domestic
If 2 different places: conflicts-torts case
e.g. Tortuous conduct happens in state A, injury happens in State B.
-last act: place of injury
How vested right? Right = right to enforce a COA
-if State B allows the act to be actionable, he can bring a suit in any forum with a COA irrelevant if the other forum does not make it actionable
GRAY V. GRAY
-wife sued husband because of the injury she incurred because of her husbands driving.
-they lived in NH /New Hamp-shir/ - which allowed suits between spouses
-the incident happened in Maine - which does not allow suits between spouses
-Wife sued husband in NH
HELD: wife cannot sue husband because in the place where the injury occurred, she has no right to sue her husband
Law 1: can't sue even if there's a COA because they are husband and wife
Law2: can't sue because there's no COA in the first place, incidental lang status nila as spouses - which applies in this case!!! Broad prohibition
*what if law 1: can sue in another forum which allows suits between spouses BECAUSE THE WIFE HAS A COA!
Probable policy why disallow suits between spouses: marital harmony, may resolve dispute by themselves
ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R.R. CO V. CARROLL
-Carroll was hired as a breakman by AGS RR Co - both parties are from ALABAMA
-Employment contract entered in ALABAMA
-HOWEVER, injury to Carroll happened in MISSISSIPPI  - which does not allow suits by EE vs. ER for negligent acts of "fellow servants"
-so Carroll sued in Alabama, where there is no such prohibition
HELD: CARROLL CANNOT SUE ER!
-COA arose in Mississippi
-as to the contract: only relevant to determine the relationship between the EE-ER
-the COA arose not from the EE-ER but from the negligence of co-Ees
***
Vested rights theory simple. SUC of results.
PROs: anticipate outcome of the case because uniform…
CONS: unjust
-plus so much uncertainty in your rights. If you're riding a moving vehicle, if you cross a border you have a right but after crossing another border, you lose such right to sue...
Cf. Principle of preference
LOCAL LAW THEORY
-using purely domestic law, or the "local law" to determine the rights of the parties. Disregards the foreign element of the case
-this is considered TERRITORIAL: the forum applies its local laws
>local law determines when it cannot apply local law
>local law gives rise to a right in a conflicts of law case
PRINCIPLES OF PREFERENCE
-social expediency + justice
-3 steps:
1. Scrutinize transaction
2. Compare foreign law vs. domestic law (effects)
3. Which effect would be in accordance with justice and social expediency
-even if still territorial, considers other factors too…
-gives a character of a modern approach
Traditional law: justice is in the uniformity of decisions, even if the approach results to an unjust result
MODERN APPROACHES
MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP APPROACH
-forum would look at where the most  RELEVANT + IMPORTANT FACTUAL CONTACTS occur!!!! Not the number of contacts
AUTEN V. AUTEN
-Auten spouses married in England, had children in England, lived there for 14 years…But husband left them, went to NY
-Mrs. Auten followed Mr. Auten in NY, compelled him to enter a SEPARATION AGREEMENT  wherein Mr. Auten would give support (£50) to family, would live separately, and Mrs. Auten cannot sue him in connection with their separation
…
HELD: Apply ENGLAND LAW, which has the most concern in prescribing and governing the obligations of Mr. Auten to family…
-apply the law which the parties intends or expects to be applied: here ENGLISH LAW ***
If traditional approach applied, would the result be different?
>>>YES. Law of place of contracting so NY Law applies (place of execution of the contract)
>>>si Ma'am: Breach was in NY because it is where Mr. Auten refused to pay the support (place of enforcement)
...The acceptance of the agreement was in NY
HAAG V. BARNES
-Illinois lawyer and NY Legal secretary had an illegitimate child born in Illinois. They entered into a SUPPORT AGREEMENT wherein the Illinois lawyer would pay $275/month for support. NY Legal secretary sued separately
CRITIQUE: Different application of the MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP APPROACH
-difference in determining what contact is significant and relevant
-very individualistic: the judge alone would determine what law would apply, what contacts would be relevant….depends on the judge
INTEREST ANALYSIS
-look at the policy behind the law of the states, not merely the significant factual contacts in the dispute; apply the law of the state which has more real interest in applying its law
-"Interest" of the STATE, not the individual, not the litigants
TRUE CONFLICT: where both states are both interested
Cf: Alabama and Mississippi case
ALABAMA: liability of ER for damages to Ees… (to compel the Ers to be more vigilant in making sure that the Ees would do their jobs well…)
MISSISSIPPI: protect ER from liability arising from the negligence of co-EEs of the complainant EE - protect rin Ees…because the ER would get back at the Ees in one way or another
In Grey v. Grey decided using interest analysis, would the result be the same?
NH: allows suits vs. spouses - interest
Maine: does not allow suits - interest in preserving harmonious relationship of their own citizens
***
BOBCOCK V. JACKSONS
-neighbor Bobcock was seriously injured because of an incident wherein Mr. Jackson drove the vehicle
-Bobcock sued Jackson
-Jackson, as a defense, alleged that Ontario law does not allow suits unless the owner or driver of the vehicle is engaged in the business of carrying passengers for compensation…
…basta alam mo na un...