Also known as: international private laws · private international law · conflict of laws
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The body of rules within each state's law that determines the effect given when a case has significant contacts with more than one jurisdiction. It encompasses judicial jurisdiction, recognition of foreign judgments, and choice-of-law rules that select which state's substantive law governs the rights and liabilities of the parties.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ines Ibarra, a State A farmer, sued Iris Energy, a State B corporation, in federal court in State A over a forward contract for crop delivery. The federal court applied State A's substantive contract rules, including its conflict-of-laws principles, to decide whether a liquidated-damages clause was enforceable. Because the contract was formed and performed entirely in State A, State A law governed the claim.
Idris Ives, a State X resident, sued Imperial Motors, a State Y corporation, in federal court in State X for breach of a sales agreement. The court followed State X's choice-of-law rules to determine whether State X or State Y substantive law controlled the validity of a warranty disclaimer. Those rules selected State X law because the contract was negotiated and performed there.
Igor Ito, a State C ship owner, contracted with Icarus Aviation, a State D company, for offshore drilling services. The agreement contained a clause designating State C courts and State C law. When a dispute arose, the court enforced the clause after weighing the parties' expectations and the lack of any strong public-policy reason to disregard it.
Ingrid Innes, a State E franchisee, was sued by Ironwood Capital, a State F franchisor, in State F court for breach of a long-term franchise agreement. The court exercised jurisdiction because the defendant had purposefully directed activities at State F residents and the claim arose from those contacts. The resulting judgment was entitled to full faith and credit in State E.
Ian Iverson purchased a turbine from Imperial Motors that failed at sea. He sued the manufacturer in State G federal court, asserting both tort and warranty claims. The court applied State G law to decide whether the economic-loss rule barred the tort claims, treating the characterization issue as governed by the forum's conflict-of-laws rules.
Ismael Ibrahim sued Imperial Motors in State H federal court. The defendant moved to dismiss, claiming service was invalid under State H rules. The court applied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than State H law because a valid federal rule addressed the precise issue, producing the same outcome that would have occurred in State H court.
International private law is the portion of each state's domestic private law that addresses cases with contacts in more than one jurisdiction. Public international law governs relations among sovereign states and is not part of any single state's private-law system.
It covers judicial jurisdiction over persons and occurrences outside the state, the effect given to judgments rendered in other states, and choice-of-law rules that select which state's substantive law determines the parties' rights and liabilities.
…is a customary elliptical way of referring to jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 56, Introductory Note (1971) (hereafter Restatement). This recognition leads to the conclusion that in order to justify an exercise of jurisdiction in rem , the basis for jurisdiction…
…particular problem for which it is used." Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra , at 108; Cook, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws, pp. 154-183 (1942). It is true that both the Enabling Act and the Erie rule say, roughly, that federal courts are to apply state "substantive" law and federal "procedural" law, but from…
…engaged in forum activities. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra , at 292; see also Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 36-37 (1971). As we previously have noted, jurisdictional rules may not be employed in such a way as to make litigation "so gravely difficult and inconvenient" that a party unfairly is…
…of Adhesion—Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract” 43 Colum. L. Rev. 629, 632 (1943); Ehrenzweig, “Adhesion Contracts in the Conflict of Laws
…the opinion of the Court. The principal question in this case is whether in diversity cases the federal courts must follow conflict of laws
Choice-of-law rules are treated as substantive for Erie purposes. Therefore a federal court must follow the conflict rules of the state in which it sits when deciding which state's substantive law governs the claim.
When all potentially interested states have the same local rule on the precise issue, the court may treat the contacts as if they occurred in a single state. This avoids unnecessary complexity without changing any party's substantive rights.
A clause selecting the law for construing the instrument is respected, but issues of title, recording, and validity of interests in land are ordinarily governed by the law of the situs state under the most-significant-relationship test.