Dispute Settlement (CIvil Suit) GP - Unit 2 - Research Paper Example

Conflict of Law Conflict of law is a set of rules that is used internationally to determine the legal system or jurisdiction that will be used to resolve contractual disputes. From the above case, it is evident that each of the four different parties will place a different argument as to the rule of conflict of jurisdiction that would be used to resolve the civil suit. The lawyers for State X will argue that the closest and most real connection rule should be used to decide where the suit should be heard (Burton, 2006).

In this case, the lawyers will argue that ABC Company is incorporate in State X, and the factory being used in State Z belongs to State X, therefore the company has the most real connection to the contract (Hillman, 2009). This implies that the state has the most jurisdictions over the case being heard. The closest and most real connection rule is used by courts to reasonably determine the party that has the biggest connection to the case being disputed. State X could also state that it is the one being sued, so it has a bigger confection that the other parties to the case.

Conversely, the lawyers representing State Y would argue that proper law should be used to determine which country should hear the dispute. Commonly, proper law is the basic rule used to resolve most jurisdiction arguments, and it involves the terms used in the contractual argument (Frey and Frey, 2001). The parties in this case already agreed that all disputes regarding the agreement would be heard in State Y, which means that proper law gives State Y jurisdiction over the case. The Doctrine of Proper law is used to determine the intentions of the parties to a contract as to which jurisdiction should govern the dispute being resolved.

This means that a court will look at the wording of the contract to determine what the parties intended the lawsuit to be decided. State Z would also argue for the closest and most real connection to the case when the dispute a as to where the jurisdiction of the case is argued. From the case facts, it is noted that the factory was to be built in State Z and burnt down in the said State. The Lawyers for the state would argue that since the contract involves building in State Z, and the events occurred in this state, there is the realest connection to the case, so the jurisdiction should be there’s.

Finally, State Q would also argue that the closest and most implied connection is that the nationalities of the people killed in the tragedy came from its jurisdiction; therefore the dispute should be decided in their country. The decision, therefore, falls to the judge in the case to decide where there was any implied or express selection in the contract wording as to which state would hold the dispute hearing (Tetley,2009), which in this case, is State Y. State Y has both the power of proper law and express selection from the contract between the parties to the building of the factory.

References Burton, S. (2006). Principles of Contract Law. Bolton: West/Thomson Learning Publishers. Frey, M., and Frey, P. (2001). Essentials of Contract Law. Bolton: West/Thomson Learning Publishers. Hillman, R. (2009). Principles of Contract Law. New York: West Publishers. Tetley, W. (2009). Mixed jurisdictions: Common law vs. civil law. Unif. L. Rev. 3