FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1506589229> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1506589229 endingPage "558" @default.
• W1506589229 startingPage "535" @default.
• W1506589229 abstract "INTRODUCTION In the United States, the choice-of-law analysis of consumer contracts is governed generally by the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws. According to [section]187, the in a contract will be applied unless the application of that law violate a fundamental of that state. (1) Unfortunately, American courts applying this method have produced inconsistent interpretations of consumer contracts, (2) since not all courts have been willing to use the exception to offer consumers the protections of the laws of their home state. The United States be well served to look at Europe's example of consumer contract interpretation to develop a more uniform and consistent legal approach that honors the protections of consumers' home state laws. Under Council Regulation 593/2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), consumers in Europe are permitted to select the applicable law of a contract, to the extent that the protections under the selected law do not derogate from the protections of the laws of their home jurisdiction? Adopting this approach in the United States not only further the goals of protecting consumers in America but also encourage consumer confidence in cross-border transactions. In addition, such a change provide U.S. courts with a straightforward choice-of-law model that encourages consistency and reliability in judicial interpretations of choice-of-law provisions in consumer contracts. Part I of this note explores consumer protection choice-of-law in America under [section]187. The selected cases illustrate the inconsistency of the application of home-state protections to consumer litigants in U.S. courts. Part II examines the European conflicts approach for consumer contracts to help understand the benefits and drawbacks of the Rome I approach. Finally, in part III, this Note analyzes whether a new American approach based on the European model offer a more predictable and consistent methodology for interpreting choice-of-law provisions in consumer contracts. I. AMERICAN COURTS HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT IN PROTECTING CONSUMERS BY ENFORCING THE LAWS OF THEIR HOME STATES Though not always applied with the same degree of uniformity, American courts examining the public policy exception sometimes look to the same goal as European system: protecting consumers from a choice of law that is detrimental to the protections their home jurisdiction's laws and customs allow. (4) Under the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws [section] 187(2), the state law chosen by the parties to govern a contract will be applied unless the selected state lacks a substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction or the application of the chosen state's law would be contrary to a fundamental of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state ... which, under [section] 188, be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the (5) Similarly, prior to the 2001 revisions, (6) the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) permitted parties to a transaction to select the law of any state or nation to which the transaction bears a reasonable relation. (7) At its core, [section] 187 aims to protect both consumer and state interests. (8) The Restatement provides that law should not be applied without regard for the interests of the state which be the state of the applicable law ... in the absence of an effective choice by the (9) These state interests affect consumer interests because the [p]rime objectives of contract law are to protect the justified expectations of the parties and to make it possible for them to foretell with accuracy what will be their rights and liabilities under the contract. (10) Thus, the Restatement uses the interests of the state as means to protect the expectations of contracting parties. …" @default.
• W1506589229 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1506589229 creator A5014559776 @default.
• W1506589229 date "2009-03-22" @default.
• W1506589229 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1506589229 title "Consumer Protection Choice of Law: European Lessons for the United States" @default.
• W1506589229 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W1506589229 type Work @default.
• W1506589229 sameAs 1506589229 @default.
• W1506589229 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1506589229 countsByYear W15065892292017 @default.
• W1506589229 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1506589229 hasAuthorship W1506589229A5014559776 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C2776436953 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C2777553584 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C2779967654 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C2989499966 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C62100270 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C86432685 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConcept C8705443 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C144133560 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C162324750 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C170706310 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C17744445 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C190253527 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C199539241 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C200635333 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C2524010 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C2776436953 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C2776949292 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C2777553584 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C2777834853 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C2779967654 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C2989499966 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C33923547 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C62100270 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C86432685 @default.
• W1506589229 hasConceptScore W1506589229C8705443 @default.
• W1506589229 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1506589229 hasLocation W15065892291 @default.
• W1506589229 hasOpenAccess W1506589229 @default.
• W1506589229 hasPrimaryLocation W15065892291 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W1484636169 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W1898793101 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W1903197438 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W2043506503 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W2151938955 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W2165445471 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W2258424506 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W2337485703 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W2380480250 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W2932012540 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W2945959535 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W3034004348 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W3122799191 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W3125592614 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W3141577112 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W3176509183 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W3209820273 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W69848023 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W17185052 @default.
• W1506589229 hasRelatedWork W1807448775 @default.
• W1506589229 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W1506589229 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1506589229 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1506589229 magId "1506589229" @default.
• W1506589229 workType "article" @default.