Authored by Eshita Sand, a 4th year student of B.A.LL.B(Hons.)- with Specialization in Energy Laws at College of Legal Studies, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun. According to recital 11, Rome I Regulation, ‘The parties’ freedom to choose the applicable law should be one of the cornerstones of the system of conflict-of-law rules in matters of contractual obligations’. The ambit of party autonomy is seriously restricted, on the other hand, in the context of contracts other than B to B. For three categories of reputedly weaker parties (consumers, employees and insurance policy holders) party choice of law is allowed only to increase the protection provided under the law of the weaker party’s habitual residence (or place
…show more content…
In this respect, the Regulation introduces several noteworthy features, all designed to enhance legal certainty throughout the choice of law process. Most changes, which include efforts to simplify and modernize the applicable rules, are explicit, with additional articles entailing a modification in the initial numbering; some however nestle more discretely among the recitals, whose normative status is anything but clear. Most remarkably no doubt, the principles determining the law applicable in the absence of choice have been overhauled, and the hallmark of the Rome Convention, the sophisticated concept of ‘characteristic performance’, has practically disappeared in favor of a set of special – and no doubt more predictable – rules for various categories of contracts. In the same vein, consumer protection has been extended to cover the holes gradually revealed in the case-law of member States art 6; choice of law rules for insurance contracts, previously contained in directives and excluded from the Rome Convention, have been included for clarity’s sake within the Regulation (art 7); contracts of carriage of goods are now gratified with an article to themselves (art 5); multilateral security systems are introduced among the default …show more content…
3 of the Rome I Regulation, that follows closely the words of its forefathers in the Rome Convention. Alberto Luis Zuppi, The Parol Evidence Rule: A Comparative Study of the Common Law, the Civil Law Tradition, and Lex Mercatoria, Georgia Journal of Int’l & Comp. L. 235, 263 (2007). The Author underlines that this concept was, at the beginning, vague as a “ghost ship [sailing] trough the discussion of international trade”. Preamble, first line. See, generally Michael J. Bonell, Do We Need a Global Commercial Code?, Dickinson Law Review 87, 98 (2001). Michael J. Bonell, The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law: Similar Rules for the Same Purposes?, Unif. L. Rev. 229, 244 (1996). Bonell, Do We Need a Global Commercial Code?. Klaus Peter Berger, The Principles of European Contract Law and the Concept of the ‘Creeping Codification’ of Law, Eur. Rev. Priv. Law 21, 24 (2001). Christiana Fountoulakis, The Parties’ Choice of ‘Neutral Law’ in International Sales Contracts, Eur. J. L. Reform 303
In this respect, the Regulation introduces several noteworthy features, all designed to enhance legal certainty throughout the choice of law process. Most changes, which include efforts to simplify and modernize the applicable rules, are explicit, with additional articles entailing a modification in the initial numbering; some however nestle more discretely among the recitals, whose normative status is anything but clear. Most remarkably no doubt, the principles determining the law applicable in the absence of choice have been overhauled, and the hallmark of the Rome Convention, the sophisticated concept of ‘characteristic performance’, has practically disappeared in favor of a set of special – and no doubt more predictable – rules for various categories of contracts. In the same vein, consumer protection has been extended to cover the holes gradually revealed in the case-law of member States art 6; choice of law rules for insurance contracts, previously contained in directives and excluded from the Rome Convention, have been included for clarity’s sake within the Regulation (art 7); contracts of carriage of goods are now gratified with an article to themselves (art 5); multilateral security systems are introduced among the default …show more content…
3 of the Rome I Regulation, that follows closely the words of its forefathers in the Rome Convention. Alberto Luis Zuppi, The Parol Evidence Rule: A Comparative Study of the Common Law, the Civil Law Tradition, and Lex Mercatoria, Georgia Journal of Int’l & Comp. L. 235, 263 (2007). The Author underlines that this concept was, at the beginning, vague as a “ghost ship [sailing] trough the discussion of international trade”. Preamble, first line. See, generally Michael J. Bonell, Do We Need a Global Commercial Code?, Dickinson Law Review 87, 98 (2001). Michael J. Bonell, The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law: Similar Rules for the Same Purposes?, Unif. L. Rev. 229, 244 (1996). Bonell, Do We Need a Global Commercial Code?. Klaus Peter Berger, The Principles of European Contract Law and the Concept of the ‘Creeping Codification’ of Law, Eur. Rev. Priv. Law 21, 24 (2001). Christiana Fountoulakis, The Parties’ Choice of ‘Neutral Law’ in International Sales Contracts, Eur. J. L. Reform 303