In many international contract negotiations, the question of which law will govern often arises in the final stages and receives less than the careful attention that it deserves. Further, a U.S. buyer or seller may fear losing a deal and, as a result, acquiesce to subjecting a contract to the law of a non-U.S. jurisdiction. What happens if a dispute arises under the contract and the U.S. party faces in a U.S. court the need to prove the selected foreign law? Or what if a U.S. company with branch or subsidiary operations abroad encounters a claim in this country, based on the law of another jurisdiction? The decided cases provide some useful lessons and warnings for litigants and practitioners.

In 1966, Fed.R.Civ.P. 44 was amended to treat a court’s determination of the content of foreign law as “a ruling on a question of law.” Amended Rule 44.1 also provides that “[t]he court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” The amended rule requires the party intending to raise an issue concerning foreign law to inform the court and parties by “pleadings or other reasonable written notice.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]