This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
It features the following articles: Horst Eidenmüller: Recht und Ökonomik des Extremsport-Sponsorings in vergleichender Perspektive, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 2, pp. 273-325 (53), DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0002. The Law and Economics of Extreme Sports Sponsoring in Comparative Perspective.
After reading and reviewing a thought-provoking book on the choice of law in international commercial contracts in Indonesia last year, I decided to delve further into the subject by picking up a book on Indonesian private international law. This review provides an overview of its content. Luis F.S.S. 97, 111-112).
Very recently, Indonesian private international law has attracted significant scholarship in the English language. [1] 1] Dr Penasthika’s monograph (‘the monograph’) [2] is one such work that deserves attention for its compelling and comprehensive account of choice of law in international commercial contracts in Indonesia.
The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (‘ CISG ’), currently adopted by 95 States, is a treaty intended to harmonise the laws governing cross-border goods trade: and thereby promote trade itself. Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash Business School.
The enactment was accompanied by amendments to the Rules of Court 2021, Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 and Family Justice Rules 2014. Service of Singapore process through the Convention will help ease the procedure in civillaw countries, which may view service of foreign process as raising sovereignty issues.
In June 2021, Pesaro commenced legal proceedings in Italy seeking to unwind or set aside these transactions. Dexia then brought an action in England to establish the transactions were valid, lawful and binding on the parties. A central question of the dispute was the law applicable to the contract.
The book examines 15 Asian jurisdictions, representing a variety of legal systems, including civillaw (China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Thailand), common law (Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Myanmar, and India), and mixed jurisdictions (Philippines and Sri Lanka).
One of the key documents prepared for the meeting is the Global Report – Statistical study of applications made in 2021 under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention , where crucial information has been gathered about the application of this Convention during the year 2021. It is submitted the following: 55.
We translated the press announcement as follows: Background and Significance of the Interpretation People’s courts face the important issue of how international treaties and international practices are applied domestically in foreign-related civil and commercial trials.
Given the importance of some of such cases, the CPL empowers Chinese courts the jurisdiction over actions involving contract disputes or disputes over property rights against a non-resident defendant if certain conditions are satisfied. It was abolished on January 1, 2021 when the Civil Code of the PRC took effect. De dr. int.
Introduction In a previous post , I reported and commented on a decision rendered by the Abu Dhabi Supreme Court (hereinafter “ADSC”) in which the Court addressed the issue of the applicability of the Abu Dhabi Civil Marriage Law (Law No. In its judgment, the ADFCF refers to the contract dated 7 December 2023 ).
The legal scholarly discussion of the last decade has brought to the establishment of various models in the fields of contractlaw, property law, company law, securities law etc. Thus, various legal problems in these fields of law could be solved.
Article 51 of the PRC Maritime Special Procedure Law provides that the maritime court may upon the application of a maritime claimant issue a maritime injunction to compel the respondent to do or not to do certain acts in order to protect the claimant’s lawful rights and interests from being infringed. [4] See Case No.2 See ibid.
At the time of the trial court’s decision, the 1962 Uniform Act governed in New York, but it was superseded by the 2005 Uniform Act on June 11, 2021. In nine additional states, its predecessor, the 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act , remains in effect. On this, the Appellate Division was clearly correct.
Despite the absence of an open provision for TPF, the amendments in the “Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1999” and the “Specific Relief Act, 1963” which have ensured that the performance of a contract is mandatory, boost the confidence of the funders and make it prone to increased cases of funding. CONFIDENTIALITY. 12] Union of India v.
Additionally, under the common law, a “judgment” is an order of court which gives rise to res judicata. On the contrary, the Assistant Registrar in Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu and another specifically pointed out that “a common law court must be conscious of the unexamined assumptions and biases of the common law”.
Paragraph 1 of Article 276 lists six jurisdiction grounds, including the place of contract formation, place of contract performance, place of the subject matter, place of distrainable property, place of tort, and place of representative offices. npc/c2/c30834/202112/t20211227_315637.html> html> accessed 13 October 2024. [2]
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content