tetley_privateinternationallaw_-0

I. Topic One: Introduction to Conflict of LawsT HE F OUR C LASSIC A PPROACHES1.S INGLE C ONCEPTS OR P RINCIPLES –T HE F IRST A PPROACH∙The Statuists: from the 13th to the 18th C, the statuists tried to find a solution to conflicts arising from themultiplicity of small states and their local laws. The simplistic theory was used.∙Napoleon, Mancini and the law of the citizen: Influenced by the personal law theory of the statuists, the French Civil Code invoked the law of the citizen for questions of status and capacity. Because the C.C. was considered superior, all French citizens should benefit from it, wherever they were. Mancini advanced the lex patriae theory further in the second half of the 19th C. The law of the ship’s flag, as a concept, is very similar to the concept of the law of the citizen of Napoleon and Mancini.∙Savigny: suggested that there could be a common theory of conflicts for all nations. It was necessary to classify legal relationships, not laws, and not by their object, but rather by their place (or “seat”) The seat was determined by4 factors or contacts: (1) the domicile of the parties; (2) the geographic location of the object or thing in dispute; (3)the place of performance of a juridical act, or (4) the forum.∙Story, Territoriality and vested Rights: based his writings on …comity,‟ the principle that one state shouldrecognize the legitimate laws of another so that the laws of the first state will also be recognized when appropriate.Appropriateness was usually found in the recognition of the laws of a particular territory. Law of the flag can be described as an off-shoot of the territoriality theory.∙Lex Fori – Cook & Ehrenzweig: Local law (lex fori) provides virtually the only justice in conflicts cases.∙The Proper Law: the …proper law of the contract‟ was used by Westlake who defined it as “the law of the country with which the contract has its most real connection.” See more at p.10. Also …most significant relationship‟∙The American Conflicts Revolution: American courts do not necessarily follow any particular contemporary conflicts theory but often apply one theory, or part of it, on one occasion and another theory (when seeminglyconvenient) in other circumstances. Currie was instrumental in developing the distinction between true and false conflicts. In false conflicts, only one state had a genuine interest in having its law applied. This state was usually the forum. In true conflicts, where both states had such a genuine interest, Currie advocated application of the lex fori in all cases, refusing to weigh the competing interests if the laws concerned, on the ground that such a task belonged to Congress, and not the courts. The American Conflicts revolution has led the world in development of choice of law rules in both contract and tort.∙ Problems with the American approach at p. 17 (TEXT)∙ National in Theory∙ National in Practice∙ No stimulus to look outward∙How to evaluate …interests‟∙ Is equity the criterion∙ Problems with the legal system∙ Cri de coeur∙ American Public Social Services∙ Distributive vs. corrective (American) justice∙ Conclusion – American conflicts theory: One may conclude that the American system of conflicts of law is very advanced, is the subject of intense legal writing and thinking, but in many respects is very peculiar to the US. The social and legal system in America is corrective rather than distributive in approach. And it is the private insurance industry which is expected to provide the benefits to society after suit, rather than the government, which in most other industrialized countries provides social services to the whole population without suit through social programmes. The American system thus favours litigation rather than government distribution of benefits and this, in turn, causes a different approach to problem-solving in the conflict of laws. Inequalities in compensation are thus generated by the system. Because of these inequalities, many of the various forms of American conflict of law theory look to equity to solve conflict problems, rather than seeking the properly applicable law.2.M ULTIPLE N UMBERED R ULES (“P RIVATE C ONFLICT C ODES)–T HE S ECOND A PPROACH∙Dicey & Morris: present conflicts of law rules as decided by English courts and occasionally disagree with the decisions and present alternatives.∙McLeod: proposes 205 rules: The first 4 refer to generalities and to jurisdiction, but the remainder consist of specific and detailed rules for very particular questions. Accepts that issues such as domicile, residence and situs are really only connecting factors.∙The First Restatement (1934):∙The Restatement Second (1969): Similar to Savigny‟s legal relationship but the relationship is the government‟s or the state‟s whose interests are such that the law of that state should apply: “a court, except for constitutionalrestrictions and a directive of its own state, will choose the law which best reflects the relevant needs, policies and interests of the interested states on the question, providing the law so chosen also reflects the principles of certainty, predictability and uniformity, as well as providing ease of determination and application.” This provides the most authoritative solution to conflicts of laws in the U.S.3.G ENERAL T EXTS,C OMMENTARIES AND E SSAYS –T HE T HIRD A PPROACH∙ P.254.T HE M ODERN A PPROACH –N ATIONAL L EGISLATION AND I NTERNATIONAL C ONVENTIONS –T HE F OURTHA PPROACH∙ If the most important recent theoretical finding in conflict of laws has been the most significant relationship or closest and most real connection theory, the most important recent approach to resolving conflicts has beeninternational conventions and national legislation on conflict of laws.∙National Laws: p.28∙The Hague Convention: provide great authority and influence, attaining at times the stature of customaryinternational law.∙Rome Convention (1980): see p.30.∙ Applies uniform choice-of-law rules to contracts with very few exclusions∙ applies to contract conflicts in 12 states and overrides their domestic laws∙ applies to conflicts between different legal systems in a single state because …country‟ is defined in a.19 as one of several territorial unites in a single state∙ Applies to conflicts involving the laws of states not party to the Convention, whenever those laws are subject of consideration under the Convention. Thus, it will apply to Canadian contracts when they come before the courts of the signatories of the Rome Convention.∙ applies to commercial as well as to consumer and employment contracts and contracts between non-merchants.∙ A.18 reinforces the international character of the rules and the desirability of achieving uniformity in theirinterpretation and application.∙ The Rome Convention has effect outside the EU, and any European Nation may adopt it, as Finland has done.∙The New national maritime conflict laws: p.32∙The new doctrine: p.32∙ Conclusions: General advances in the state of conflicts law will not come from the courts, which are weighed down with diverse and heavy work loads. Although doctrinal writings of the past have been replaced in large part by national legislation and international conventions, the profs must continue to refine and publish their theories.II. Topic Two: General Conflict of Laws Theory∙ But even the 4th approach, national conflict laws and international conflict conventions, is not a complete answer. The courts, practitioners and academics require a consistent method and order to apply those laws and conventions when solving a particular conflicts problem. What is called for is a consistent and uniform methodology.I.S OME G ENERAL PRINCIPLES OF C ONFLICT OF L AWS1.Substance & Ancillaries v. Formalities (as opposed to substance v. procedure) (p.47 TEXT)∙ Traditionally, matters which were substantive were subject to their own law, even if it was a foreign law. Matter which were deemed procedural were subject to the law of the forum (lex fori). Most authorities start out with the procedural/lex fori rule, but then present so many exceptions and have such difficulty in distinguishing substance from procedure that little remains of the doctrine.∙ This should be replaced by distinguishing between substance and ancillaries, and formalities of the forum court.Furthermore, it is preferable to determine the proper law of each relationship or of each ancillary.∙Substance: the legal relationships (contracts and torts/delicts) which have a proper law of their own and which proper law is usually not the forum.∙Ancillaries: the time limitations, cross-defences, rules of evidence, presumptions, burdens of proof, order of proof, etc., which affect or quality the legal relationship. They were classically deemed procedural (and thus of the forum) but, in reality, ancillaries have a proper law of their own, which is usually identical to the proper law of the contract or tort/delict to which they are connected.∙Formalities of the forum court: are of the forum only and are administrative: the method of drawing up and serving the writ, when, where and how the court sits, how the trial is conducted, who questions the witnesses, whether there is a trial by jury, how foreign law is proven, etc.a) Substance and Procedure – The Unrealistic Distinction∙ The classic substance/procedure dichotomy of the conflict laws was to declare that matters of procedure aregoverned by the domestic law of the forum. Despite the absolutism of their dicta, the authorities always follow with a general plea of the difficulty in making the substance/procedure distinctions. i.e. “The difficulty inapplying this Rule lies in discriminating between rules of procedure and rules of evidence.” And thereafterfollows a long discussion of exceptions with respect to witnesses, presumptions, estoppel, set-off and counter-claim, priorities, statutes of limitations, etc.∙Lord Wilberforce in Miliangos: expresses best the ambivalence of the current UK position on substance and procedure. The dichotomy is accepted but it must be circumvented if it causes injustice. The HoL was able toorder the payment of a debt in Swiss francs, as claimed by the creditor, rather than in pounds sterling, which astrict application of UK procedural rules would have mandated, because the proper law of the contract was Swiss, as were the money of account and the money of payment: “though English law (lex fori) prevails as regardsprocedural matters, it must surely be wrong in principle to allow procedure to affect, detrimentally, the substance of the creditor‟s rights.∙First Restatement: all formalities are governed by the law of the forum. Ancillaries are declared to be subject to the same treatment. Despite the averment of the First Restatement, however, ancillaries do have a proper law of their own.∙Second Restatement: Breaks the mould and does not attempt to distinguish substance from procedure. Rather, it properly describes procedure as the law with which the forum state has the most significant relationship. s.122: “A court usually applies its own local law rules prescribing how litigation shall be conducted even when it applies the local law r ules of another state.” Thus sections of ch.6 which designate the law of the forum as the applicable law in all cases deal with formalities rather than procedure: see examples at p. 52. However, certain procedural rules in Ch.6 a contain exceptions which a llow the court to apply a foreign law under given circumstances: “when the substantial rights and duties of the parties would be affected by the determination of the issue (s.125), where another state has “the dominant interest in the question”, and where “the primary purpose of the relevant rules of the state of the otherwise applicable law is to affect decision of the issue rather than to regulate the conduct of the trial.”∙Conclusion: the Restatement Second does not invoke the procedure/substance dicho tomy but invokes the …local law of the forum‟ which determines the question …unless the substantial rights and duties of the parties would be affected‟ by the determination of the issue by the law of the forum. This is admirable.∙National Laws: see p.53ff. Many national laws invoke procedure and substance in varying degrees.∙Quebec: a.3132: procedure is governed by the law of the court seized of the matter. Fortunately, the role of procedure would seem to be limited because certain issues, which normally might be consideredprocedural, have been given a proper law of their own. See a.3130 (evidence), 3131 (prescription) and 3133(arbitration).∙Rome Convention 1980: Excludes evidence and procedure from its ambit (a.1(2)(h)). It does, nevertheless,include provisions on specific issues traditionally considered procedural. (see p.60) Each is governed by its own proper law. The conflicts rule concerning modes of proof is more flexible: any mode of proof is admissible ifacceptable either in the lex fori o r the law under which the contract is properly and formally valid, …provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.” A reading of the Rome Convention demonstrates that the substance/procedure distinction is no longer of major importance.b) Ancillaries – A Proper Law of their Own∙ Formalities of the forum court are decided by the lex fori, including the preparation of writs and writtenpleadings and forms and their service in the jurisdiction. Decisions, too, are taken by the forum court in respect of other matters, but the forum court does not necessarily apply the lex fori. Thus, ancillaries (time limitations,presumptions, cross-defences, BoP, etc.) which were traditionally deemed procedural, have a proper law of their own, which may be the foreign law or the lex fori, but usually the law of the subject matter to which they areancillary.∙Cross-defences: despite the generalization of many authorities, are not necessarily procedural and are notnecessarily subject to the lex fori.∙Time Limitations: are not necessarily subject to the lex fori, rather, they are rights, each of which has a proper law of its own, usually attached to the right which it prescribes. While the proper law may be a foreign law ormay be the lex fori, it is better to start with the generalization that time limits are not of the forum.∙Burden of Proof rules: have proper laws of their own and are not necessarily subject to the lex fori, even ifrebuttable.∙Damages: damages, including interest (rate and date from which it runs) and currency were historically left to the forum as being procedural. Subsequently, remoteness and heads of damage were deemed substantive and the calculation of damages was deemed procedural.∙ See also Burden of Proof, order of Proof (substantive), conduct of the trial (lex fori) and formalities of the forum court (lex fori), parol evidence rule (proper law of the contract), and statute of frauds (proper law of the contract) at p.64-5.c) Formalities of the Forum Court∙ Include the method whereby a writ is drawn up and served; when, where and how a court sits; whether a civil jury trial may be held; who questions witnesses; etc (p.65). Formalities of the court follow the lex fori and areunconnected to any right or accessory right.∙The Australian Law Reform Commission referred to this as the “mechanisms of litigation.”∙The Arrests of Ships Convention (1952) reflects a proper understanding of “procedure” as consisting of theformalities of the forum court.∙ The 3 limit ation of shipowners‟ liability conventions generally deal with the substance versus formalitydistinction, as well as the classic substance vs. procedure dichotomy.∙ In conclusion, the substance/procedure distinction must be discarded for 3 principal reasons: 1) because it is difficult to make; 2) because the distinction usually results in a “forum bias”; and 3) because matter procedural are not necessarily of the lex fori. A better distinction is between substance and ancillaries, and formalities of the court.∙ In every case, it would be better is the proper law of each legal relationship (contract or tort/delict) and of each ancillary should be determined individually, by the employment of a consistent methodology. In this way, the forum court may well decide to recognize a foreign law as the proper law in respect of torts (i.e. ship collisions) or contracts (i.e. marine insurance, charterparties, bills of lading) as well as such ancillary matters as time limitations, presumptions and cross defences (set-off, recoupment, compensation and counterclaim), burden of proof and order of proof. All of which ancillaries may or may not have the same proper law as the principal proper law. The forum court should only apply the lex fori if it is the proper law of the legal relationship or ancillary, or in the case of a genuine formality of the forum court system.2.Renvoi Rejected (p.73 TEXT)∙ Renvoi is the application of the conflict rules of one state by the court of another state, in order to solve a conflict problem. Renvoi is a procedure which seems worthwhile in only a very few cases, where its application is so very arbitrary that its place in the conflict of laws is questioned. Renvoi is specifically excluded by the Rome Convention 1980.∙Single renvoi: t he referral by the forum court to the conflict rules of a foreign state (but not the foreign state‟s renvoi rules). Thus the forum court applies the domestic law specified by the foreign conflict rules. If there is a reference back to the forum‟s domestic law, this is known as …remission.‟ If there is a reference on to the domestic law of a third state, this is known as …transmission.‟∙Double Renvoi: is the referral by the forum court to the conflict rules (including the renvoi rules) of a foreign state.Thus the forum court applies the law specified by the foreign conflict rules including the foreign renvoi rules. In the case of double renvoi and remission, it is possible that the forum court will send the case back again, resulting in an endless game of judicial ping-pong. Similarly, once transmission has taken place in the case of double renvoi and the recipient (third) state invokes its conflict rules, the renvoi may go onwards or back again and endless judicial orbiting could ensue.∙History of Renvoi: see p.74∙Purpose: Renvoi was developed to counteract the territorial theory (of J.Story), the citizenship theory (Napoleon and Mancini) and law of the flag in maritime law. These 19th C. theories often resulted in incongruous solutions to conflict problems, with the result that, in many cases, renvoi was chosen as the solution, albeit artificial. Renvoi was adopted by modern theories to overcome occasional absurdities and incongruities of result. However, with the more realistic …closest and most real connection‟ (…most significant relationship‟) test in the forefront, renvoi is no longer necessary. For example, an early American decision, The Coastwise, used renvoi when the …most significant relationship‟ test would have reached the same conclusion by a more convincing route.∙ Renvoi, it was argued, would achieve uniformity in conflicts cases, regardless of where a judgement was rendered. In other words, the application of the conflict rules of a foreign state with an interest in the conflict was supposed to result in the same solution that the foreign court would have provided. True uniformity of decisions, however, is difficult to achieve in this manner because renvoi, by its nature, is applied indiscriminately (à la pièce) for a short-term solution.∙Renvoi was often used as a crutch to obtain an …equitable‟ or …convenient‟ result, before the development of the most significant relationship test. Proper, uniform and consistent conflict of law rules, theory and methodology should be applied in order to obtain the just and proper result, not renvoi, which is an indiscriminate and uncontrollable conflict of law tool. Renvoi is an antiquated escape hatch, no longer necessary under modern private international law theory, national conflict statutes and international conflict conventions (all of which, incidentally, usually have escape hatches exceptions based on the closest and most real connection).∙ Renvoi is accepted less and less today. It is nevertheless interesting to see how renvoi has been treated by authorities. ∙First restatement: did not permit renvoi except in cases of foreign law involving title to land or divorce.∙Second Restatement: rejects renvoi but with 2 exceptions: 1) when the forum‟s conflict rules aim to …reach the same result‟ as would be reached in the other state‟s court; or 2) when the forum has no …substantial relationship‟ to the issues, and when the local law rule would be chosen by all interested states. In other words, renvoi is permitted when there is no real conflict of laws. It would have been better to have rejected renvoi altogether and to have applied the most substantial relationship rule.∙English Authorities: have usually accepted renvoi, only to qualify their acceptance by explanations, criticisms and restrictions. Thus, Dicey & Morris, and Cheshire & North conclude that English courts have rejected it, except in very limited cases (i.e. essential validity of wills and intestate successions, certain claims regarding moveables and foreign immoveables and some questions of family law).∙French Authorities: an accepted doctrine according to Pierre Mayer, especially prevalent in matters of succession and divorce. Renvoi is justified on the basis of 1) delegation; 2) subsidiary rules; and 3) coordination. The exceptions provided, however, seem to contradict his whole general theory of renvoi, because they fail to contribute to uniformity of result, which is his aim.∙Batiffol & Lagarde: accept renvoi as being workable in practice in some cases, although recognizing the theoretical objections to the concept and opposing its general application. They justify it as achieving the goal of international coordination of conflicts rules, and offer 2 solutions to the problem which arises when the conflicts rules to thedesig nated country refer back to the law of the previous country (the …ping-pong‟ problem). They reject renvoi in areas where the party autonomy principle applies, such as contracts and matrimonial regimes. However, this theory does not seem workable since they propose no uniform, consistent or logical application.∙ See others: at p.79ff∙ UNCITRAL Model Law 1985: p.80∙ The 1955 Hague Convention on Renvoi: p.81∙ Rome Convention: p.81∙ The Convention on Nuclear Ships (p.81)∙ National Laws: p.82ff∙ CCQ: rejects renvoi at 3080.∙ Renvoi is the reference by the court of one state to the conflict of law rules of another state. It should not be confused with the specific choice by the parties of the conflict of law rules to be applied to a contract. The Rome Convention 1980, for example, at art.15 does not exclude the choice of conflict rules by the parties to a contract. Choice of law rules, however, should not be assumed to be part of a general reference in a contract to a state‟s laws. The choice of conflict rules in a contract should be express and should exclude renvoi to avoid all the problems that renvoi entails. See example at p.86.∙Renvoi and Maritime Law:∙ One suggested application of renvoi to maritime law is in the sale of ships, when the ship lie within the jurisdiction of another state. Three authorities have opined in respect to title to moveables that it could be important for the forum, through renvoi, to ensure that the result it reaches will accord with what would be obtained by a courtin the foreign state. What the authorities should have held is that the proper law of the registration of title is the law of the place of the ship‟s registry, but that the proper law of the agreement to transfer the title may be some other law. This will satisfy the seeming necessity to reconcile the laws of the 2 jurisdictions. They might also have suggested that this is a case of forum non conveniens and the forum state should stay the action, sending it to the place of the proper law for decision.∙Maritime Law Decisions on Renvoi:∙ See cases at 88ff.∙ The decisions illustrate that renvoi, when used, has for its intention the avoidance of an unpleasant result, but is carried out without any basic and consistent application or methodology.∙Conclusions:∙ Renvoi has never been a fully understood or developed principle. It has had diverse (but rare) uses and many exceptions. It has been the subject of many definitions and as a principle has no uniform body of doctrine,reported cases or legislation.∙ Renvoi is therefore a rare exception which cannot be applied with any legal consistency.∙ Renvoi has been used to counter incongruities arising from the application of the 19th C territorial rules, the nationalistic …citizen theory‟ of Napoleon and Mancini a nd the prime maritime conflict rule of the past – the law of the flag. It is on occasion used today to avoid the oppressive pressures of the lex fori.∙Renvoi is no longer necessary when the most significant relationship test is used to assist in determining the proper law. Renvoi is quite unnecessary in a consistent methodology, used to reach the properly applicable law.∙ Most cases which have been solved by renvoi would have been better solved by the closest and most real connection test or by forum non conveniens.∙ Reference in a contract to the law and conflict of law rules of a particular state is not renvoi, and is valid unless the public order/policy or mandatory rules of the otherwise proper law are not being evaded.∙ Renvoi should not be used as a means to apply what the forum court may deem to be an equitable solution.Equity should not be the principal role of renvoi or even of conflicts of law. Justice can be obtained in a conflicts case through proper conflict rules applied in a consistent methodology. The judicious use of forum non conveniens is a part of that methodology and will usually avoid the need to invoke renvoi.∙ Renvoi is a short-term conflict rule which abandons the whole rational philosophy of private international law.It is a virtually uncontrollable, indiscriminate, solution to a single problem which in turn places any rational system of conflict of laws at risk, if it does not abandon it completely.∙Therefore, renvoi has no place in the conflicts of law.3.Public Order/Policy (p.99 TEXT)∙Domestic public order: concept of civilian jurisdictions and consists of high standards of morality and social conduct in a civilized society. It is rarely precisely defined, rather, it is usually invoked in general terms in a basic article of a state‟s civil code.∙Domestic public policy: concept of common law jurisdictions and consists of fundamental principles of natural justice found in a state‟s constitution, bill of rights, laws, regulations, precedents and accepted custom. Public poli cy is usually deemed less inclusive than public order, but in practice plays a similar role.∙Public order (ordre public) has been translated on occasion as …public policy.‟ This has unified the law between the common law and the civil law, at the expense of accuracy.∙ domestic public order/policy of the forum is different from international public order/policy of the forum. For example, a bigamous marriage would not be permitted under the domestic public order of most Western countries.Nevertheless, once the second marriage has been validly (formally and materially) carried out in some Easterncountry, the Western state would not consider the second marriage contrary to international public order/policy. This is because, in the conflict of laws, it is t he forum‟s international public order/policy which is applied and, under that public order, the foreign bigamous marriage, which is valid under the law of the foreign state, is not offensive.∙Mandatory rules: compulsory rules of law found in applicable international conventions or national statutes, which cannot be contracted out of. They are usually found in a business or commercial context and sometimes override an express choice of some other law by the parties to a contract.∙ Mandatory rules have virtually the same authority in domestic law as public o/p, but have a different and lesser role in the conflict of laws, as in the Rome Convention. Mandatory rules might also be defined as binding rules of law imposed by legislation or international convention. Mandatory rules (overriding statutes) have veryappropriately been described as …crystallized rules of public policy.”∙Obligatory forum court statutes: mandatory national statutes (or international conventions) which oblige a particular court, whenever hearing any case on the subject referred to in that statute, to apply that statute (i.e. UK Merchant Shipping Act 1979: makes the Convention apply whenever any shipowners‟ limitation proceedings are taken in an English court in respect to an incident arising anywhere in the world). Thus, the UK Admiralty Court must apply the 1976 Convention when limitation proceedings are brought before it, even in the case of a Canadian and a US ship colliding in Canadian or US waters, although neither country has adopted the 1976 Convention.∙ What distinguishes obligatory forum court statutes from public order or mandatory rules is that obligatory forum court statutes are obligatorily applied by the forum court, whenever they come before that court, rather than because of any connecting factor with the forum. Most authorities have not distinguished obligatory forum court statutes from public order or mandatory rules.∙ Most authorities have not distinguished obligatory forum statutes from public order or mandatory rules.∙ Obligatory forum court statutes should have no place in any system of international law. Fortunately, they are rare and can be overcome in those jurisdictions which have adopted the principle of forum non conveniens.∙Civilian Public Order in the Conflict of Laws (p.103)∙CC: a.6 provides the principal stipulation as to ordre public in French domestic law: No one may, by privateagreement, contravene the laws of public order and good morals.∙ To Mayer, internal French public order consists of basic standards of morality and justice, while in Pr.International law, public order was extended to the protection of principles of …natural law‟, the preservation of the political and social foundations of French civilization, and the safeguarding of certain legislative policies.∙Batiffol & Lagarde: Distinguish between domestic public order, consisting of laws which parties may notderogate by contract, and international public order, which opposes the application in France of a foreign andrepugnant law that would otherwise apply under French conflicts rules. They consider that public order authorizes France courts to disregard foreign laws deemed incompatible with order public, even when such laws are rendered applicable by treaties.∙ According to Loussouarn & Bourel, see public order in pr. International law as a mechanism controlling the application of the otherwise applicable foreign law, quite distinct from domestic public policy. Internationalpublic order embraces both Western notions of morality and justice, and also certain moral, social and economic purposes flowing from French legislative policies, and directed at furthering vital interests of French civilization.Public order defends the French national legal system and French civilization against what are deemed to beintolerable foreign laws and practices.∙ The distinction of the Rome Convention between mandatory rules of the forum (a.7(2)) and mandatory rules ofa closely connected law (a.7(1)) was strongly influenced by French writers.。