Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 394 views

    Case Review

    Uploaded by

    David Hua
    1. In Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Supreme Court held that a case can be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds when another country is a more convenient forum, even if its laws are less favorable to the plaintiff. 2. In Bank of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others, the court determined Japanese law governed a guarantee contract based on Japan having the closest connection, including the contract references to Yen and negotiations/performance occurring in Japan. 3. In Shell v R W Sturge, the court enforced a forum selection clause designating English courts despite a claim under Ohio securities law, finding forum clauses promote predictability in international agreements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Review

    Uploaded by

    David Hua
    394 views3 pages
    1. In Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Supreme Court held that a case can be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds when another country is a more convenient forum, even if its laws are less favorable to the plaintiff. 2. In Bank of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others, the court determined Japanese law governed a guarantee contract based on Japan having the closest connection, including the contract references to Yen and negotiations/performance occurring in Japan. 3. In Shell v R W Sturge, the court enforced a forum selection clause designating English courts despite a claim under Ohio securities law, finding forum clauses promote predictability in international agreements.

    Original Description:

    case review

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. In Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Supreme Court held that a case can be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds when another country is a more convenient forum, even if its laws are less favorable to the plaintiff. 2. In Bank of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others, the court determined Japanese law governed a guarantee contract based on Japan having the closest connection, including the contract references to Yen and negotiations/performance occurring in Japan. 3. In Shell v R W Sturge, the court enforced a forum selection clause designating English courts despite a claim under Ohio securities law, finding forum clauses promote predictability in international agreements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    394 views3 pages

    Case Review

    Uploaded by

    David Hua
    1. In Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Supreme Court held that a case can be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds when another country is a more convenient forum, even if its laws are less favorable to the plaintiff. 2. In Bank of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others, the court determined Japanese law governed a guarantee contract based on Japan having the closest connection, including the contract references to Yen and negotiations/performance occurring in Japan. 3. In Shell v R W Sturge, the court enforced a forum selection clause designating English courts despite a claim under Ohio securities law, finding forum clauses promote predictability in international agreements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Case

    Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

    Facts

    The case was initiated upon the Plaintiffs taking legal actions against the Defendants from injuries
    sustained in a plane crash in Scotland. The suit was applied by the Plaintiffs in US since liability law is
    better for the Plaintiffs in the US than Scottish law. Forum of the case was removed from state court
    to federal court, and subsequently transferred to the District Court of Pennsylvania. Defendants
    applied for dismissal regarding the transfer under doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that
    Scotland would be the better forum.

    Issue

    Should a case be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens when all the witnesses and
    evidence are in another country, the other country’s jurors would be more connected to the
    problem, it is inconvenient to the parties to try the case in the jurisdiction where it was brought, and
    the other country’s law will be applied?

    Holding

    Yes.

    Reasoning

    1. Rule

    The central purpose of a forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure the trial is convenient, and thus a
    foreign plaintiff’s choice deserves less deference. A plaintiff's choice of forum would be interfered
    with if an alternative forum has jurisdiction and the chosen forum would "establish oppressiveness
    and vexation to a D out of all proportion to the P's convenience" or if the chosen forum is
    "inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal
    problems. " Despite the possibility of a change in substantive law as by transfer of forum, it should
    not be given any substantial weight in forum non conveniens inquiry, as it would render the doctrine
    virtually useless.

    2. Application

    Scotland is the better forum due to several factors, whereby all of the Defendants’ witnesses are in
    Great Britain and Scotland has a substantial interest in the outcome of the case. In addition, the
    argument of which where the law of the alternative forum is less favorable to Plaintiffs should not
    be given any weighs. Plaintiffs can choose among many forums, and generally choose the most
    favourable one. If they do not choose the most favourable but the action can be dismissed anyway,
    it would not be proper. The application of dismissal by the Defendants is granted.
    Case

    Bank of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others

    Facts

    The plaintiff has initiated the suit against the defendants who had acted as guarantors of a line of
    credit of ¥230,000,000 that the Osaka branch of the plaintiff had provided Sadhwanis (Japan), Ltd.
    (SJL). The plaintiff argues that either Indian or Hong Kong law should apply based on the inferred
    nature of the contract, while the defendants argue that Japanese law should be used for the
    guarantee contract, based on the closest and most real connection.

    Issue

    Which law is the governing law of the guarantee contract, Japanese law or Indian/Hong Kong law?

    Holding

    Japanese law is the governing law of the contract.

    Reasoning

    1. Rule

    The court should apply the governing law of the state that has the “closest and most real connection”
    with the dispute, if the explicit or inferred intention as to the proper law is absent or unclear.

    2. Reasoning

    As the court was unable to discover any governing law that can be inferred form the guarantee
    contract and surrounding circumstances, the court acknowledged Japanese law as the governing
    system which has the “closest and most real connection”. First, the form of guarantee has typed
    references to Yen, which is indicative of Japanese law being the common choice. Second, the place
    of economic performance must be regarded as Japan. Thirdly, the most influential guarantor resides
    in Japan; Lastly, the negotiations between the parties took place in Japan. Conclusively, the court
    decided Japanese law as the governing law of the guarantee contract.
    Case

    Shell v R W Sturge

    Facts

    The Plaintiffs brought an action against the Defendants as to rescind their investment contracts
    under Ohio securities law. Under the contract, there are forum selection clauses which gave
    exclusive jurisdiction to the English courts, and the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action
    for improper venue. The Plaintiffs argued that the forum selection clauses would deprive them of
    their rights under Ohio securities law and that public policy outweighs the policies served by
    enforcing the forum selection forums.

    Issue

    Whether the forum selection clause in the agreement should be enforced?

    Holding

    Yes

    Reasoning

    1. Rule

    A forum selection clause in an international agreement should be enforced unless the plaintiffs can
    clearly show that either the enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust or the clause was
    invalid for such reasons as fraud and overreaching. Forum selection clauses are presumed to be valid
    because they provide for orderliness and predictability.

    2. Reasoning

    It defies reason to suggest that a plaintiff may circumvent forum selection and arbitration clauses
    merely by stating claims under laws not recognized by the forum selected in the agreement. A
    plaintiff simply would have to allege violations of his country’s tort law or his country’s statutory law
    or his country’s property law in order to render nugatory any forum selection clause that implicitly
    or explicitly required the application of the law of another jurisdiction. A party’s solemn promise
    could not be defeated by artful pleading. In addition, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to show that
    Ohio public policy outweighs the policy of “supporting the integrity of international transactions”.

    You might also like