v. Kaufman (OR 1964) pg 232 Spendthrift trust, put into guardianship. a spendthrift, had been adjudicated ∆ as such in OR, made promissory notes (K) with in CA. π CA: loan, payment, no spendthrift law π, OR: forum, law that spendthrifts can’t make K’s. ∆, Court sees true conflict OR in protecting the spendthrift and CA in seeing its – citizen creditors paid. So goes with the law of the forum. Analyzes several methodologies RE1 place of making or performance CA – – Validation CA – But this is about capacity, doesn’t make as much sense to apply this rule Procedural rule doesn’t pass the laugh test. – Public policy but not Loucks-esque PP, but PP as interest analysis – – policy behind the laws. RE2 most sig contacts. Feels like CA, but how do you know? – Baxter’s comparative impairment would look to what the lender knows, – seems more fair. Bernkrant v. Fowler (CA 1961) pg 239 Agreement that G forgive debts in his will if they refinanced their π’s debts to him, did, he died, didn’t forgive. sues, statute of frauds issue. Π K would be valid in NV but not CA Applies NV law, claiming NV has a substantial interest says false conflict – bc not bound to know CA law (G’s domicile) might apply to them (more π’s like a reasonable expectations than an interest argument). Construed CA’s interest narrowly Should be a true conflict, in that CA has an interest in protecting G from claims that aren’t proved. This blurs the line between true and false conflicts how to know – when we are going to construe narrowly? Question whether this is really a K law or is this property, and whether the law is procedural or substantive. Note: NV had a man’s statute” (can’t introduce evidence that decedent “dead could not rebut procedural) that would have prevented from recovering – π – so could not have recovered if full law of either state applied. π + Choice Directed Solutions Party Autonomy in Contracts Express Choice of Law RE1- not allowed English much more open to it.
v. Kaufman (OR 1964) pg 232 Spendthrift trust, put into guardianship. ∆ a spendthrift, had been adjudicated as such in OR, made promissory notes (K) with π in CA. CA: π, loan, payment, no spendthrift law OR: ∆, forum, law that spendthrifts can’t make K’s. Court sees true conflict – OR in protecting the spendthrift and CA in seeing its citizen creditors paid. So goes with the law of the forum. Analyzes several methodologies RE1 – place of making or performance – CA Validation – CA But this is about capacity, doesn’t make as much sense to apply this rule Procedural rule – doesn’t pass the laugh test. Public policy – but not Loucks-esque PP, but PP as interest analysis – policy behind the laws. RE2 – most sig contacts. Feels like CA, but how do you know? Baxter’s comparative impairment – would look to what the lender knows, seems more fair. Bernkrant v. Fowler (CA 1961) pg 239 Agreement that G forgive π’s debts in his will if they refinanced their debts to him, did, he died, didn’t forgive. Π sues, statute of frauds issue. K would be valid in NV but not CA Applies NV law, claiming NV has a substantial interest – says false conflict bc π’s not bound to know CA law (G’s domicile) might apply to them (more like a reasonable expectations than an interest argument). Construed CA’s interest narrowly Should be a true conflict, in that CA has an interest in protecting G from claims that aren’t proved. This blurs the line between true and false conflicts – how to know when we are going to construe narrowly? Question whether this is really a K law or is this property, and whether the law is procedural or substantive. Note: NV had a “dead man’s statute” (can’t introduce evidence that decedent could not rebut – procedural) that would have prevented π from recovering – so π could not have recovered if full law of either state applied. + Choice Directed Solutions Party Autonomy in Contracts Express Choice of Law RE1- not allowed English much more open to it.