regulating conduct. NJ has interest of allocating burdens. This kind of looks like a conflict, but it seems to ultimately weigh in favor of NJ. Is burden more important than conduct? Domicile? Forum shopping? It is a tort, so would it really be conduct regulation by NY? Apparent or True Conflict Lilienthal v. Kaufman, Oregon 1964: Spendthrift from Oregon goes to California and makes a sketchy deal. California would hold the guy to it, but Oregon would not because he was under guardianship at time. California has interest in people making legit contracts. Oregon has interest of enforcing the legislative scheme and protecting the family. The court considered it to be an impasse and applied forum law. Oregon courts are instruments of state policy, anyway. Bernkrant v. Fowler, California 1961: Plaintiffs contracted in Nevada with guy who later died in California that he would forgive them debt in will. He did not. California would not allow debt forgiven while Nevada would. Apparent conflict. But, similarity of policy, just slightly different outcome. Not really a conflict. Nevada contracts, too. So, Nevada wins. Pushback Merely choosing forum law in the case of a true conflict proves distasteful to the courts. They start to think of balancing interests. D’Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson, NJ 1993: U.S. Citizen employed in Swiss subsidiary refused to pay He got fired. Swiss law is “bribes.” at-will employment. The American company is subject to FCPA, which would prohibit the termination. This court concludes that NJ interest is greater in following a federal law, (tenuous link). Rowe v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, NJ 2007: Michigan drug labelling laws less strict than NJ, so Michigan resident sues company in NJ. NJ says it’s interest in allowing this guy to collect is hardly there. NJ interest not paramount. No Interest or Unprovided-For Cases Erwin v. Thomas, Oregon 1973: Accident in Washington to Washington victim. Oregon defendants. Oregon allows loss of consortium. It has no interest in providing this claim to Washington residents. Washington gives no claim. With no interest to the contrary, law of forum will simply apply. Comparative Impairment Basically, the law of the state that would be most impaired. Not the most important purpose at stake, but the most impairment overall.
regulating conduct. NJ has interest of allocating burdens. This kind of looks like a conflict, but it seems to ultimately weigh in favor of NJ. Is burden more important than conduct? Domicile? Forum shopping? It is a tort, so would it really be conduct regulation by NY? Apparent or True Conflict Lilienthal v. Kaufman, Oregon 1964: Spendthrift from Oregon goes to California and makes a sketchy deal. California would hold the guy to it, but Oregon would not because he was under guardianship at time. California has interest in people making legit contracts. Oregon has interest of enforcing the legislative scheme and protecting the family. The court considered it to be an impasse and applied forum law. Oregon courts are instruments of state policy, anyway. Bernkrant v. Fowler, California 1961: Plaintiffs contracted in Nevada with guy who later died in California that he would forgive them debt in will. He did not. California would not allow debt forgiven while Nevada would. Apparent conflict. But, similarity of policy, just slightly different outcome. Not really a conflict. Nevada contracts, too. So, Nevada wins. Pushback Merely choosing forum law in the case of a true conflict proves distasteful to the courts. They start to think of balancing interests. D’Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson, NJ 1993: U.S. Citizen employed in Swiss subsidiary refused to pay “bribes.” He got fired. Swiss law is at-will employment. The American company is subject to FCPA, which would prohibit the termination. This court concludes that NJ interest is greater in following a federal law, (tenuous link). Rowe v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, NJ 2007: Michigan drug labelling laws less strict than NJ, so Michigan resident sues company in NJ. NJ says it’s interest in allowing this guy to collect is hardly there. NJ interest not paramount. No Interest or Unprovided-For Cases Erwin v. Thomas, Oregon 1973: Accident in Washington to Washington victim. Oregon defendants. Oregon allows loss of consortium. It has no interest in providing this claim to Washington residents. Washington gives no claim. With no interest to the contrary, law of forum will simply apply. Comparative Impairment Basically, the law of the state that would be most impaired. Not the most important purpose at stake, but the most impairment overall.
Conflict_of_Laws.docx