CONFLICT OF LAWS
1) Recognition of Judgments
Where a party won a judgment in one state (rendering state), he can enforce that judgment in
another state (recognising state) to prevent the other party from enforcing a claim against that party
in that other state based on the judgment. This requires satisfaction of full faith and credit under the
Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. This requires three elements. Firstly, the rendering state
must have had PJ, SMJ and proper venue. However, if the judgment was previously challenged and
fully litigated, such requirements will not be required. Secondly, the judgment must have been
entered on the merits, rather than on procedural matters like PJ, venue or others. Lastly, the
judgment must have been finalised. This can still include future instalments to be paid by the
defendant. The effect of enforcing a judgment in a sister state is to assert res judicata, preventing
another party from enforcing a similar claim if judgment was already made on the same claim.
However, enforcement may be denied if the opponent can demonstrate that it would offend public
policy or extrinsic fraud is involved. However, tax judgments are still enforceable, as well as where
the judgment involved a mistake of fact or law.
2) Choice of Law
Where there is a conflict between the various laws that are applicable to a case, the applicable law
may be determined based on the substantive issue involved.
Under the First Restatement, the court can apply the ‘Vested Rights’ analysis. Firstly, the court
must determine the substantive issue involved, such as torts, contract or property. Secondly, the
court must determine which state’s law must be applied based on the issue. Lastly, the court must
localise that law and apply it to the case. This does not necessarily mean the law of that state
governs the case. It is the law that is determined by that state’s law which will govern. However,
such a law may not have to be applied to resolve all the issues in the case, in which different laws
can be applied instead under the concept of depecage. For example, tortious cases require the place
of injury’s law to be applied. Contract cases require the law of the place of performance to be
applied where performance issues are involved, or the place of execution of the contract to be
applied where formation issues are involved. However, contract cases generally require an existing
law applicable under the contract’s provision to be applied. But courts can depart from this
provision if the parties never gave true mutual assent as to this provision, that state’s law has no
connection with the issue of the case, or the provision is contrary to public policy. Property cases
depend on the type of property involved. For real property, the law of the location where the
property is located must be applied (the situs), unless another test is applied to determine the law.
For personal property in inheritance cases, the law of the deceased’s domicile at the time of his
death must be applied. However, that state’s conflict of law rules may require the application of
another state’s law under the concept of ‘renvoi’. For inter vivos transactions, the law of the state
where tangible objects are located must be applied, but intangible objects like bonds or promissory
notes are where the debtor’s domicile is located.
Under the Second Restatement, the court can apply the ‘Most Significant Relationship’ test. The
court must initially look at the connecting facts of the case. This could include the domiciles of the
parties or corporations, the place of injury in tortious cases, the place of performance or contract
negotiations in contract cases. If the connecting facts are based in a similar state, that state’s law
should be applied. If there are multiple states, the court should then apply the public policy
1) Recognition of Judgments
Where a party won a judgment in one state (rendering state), he can enforce that judgment in
another state (recognising state) to prevent the other party from enforcing a claim against that party
in that other state based on the judgment. This requires satisfaction of full faith and credit under the
Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. This requires three elements. Firstly, the rendering state
must have had PJ, SMJ and proper venue. However, if the judgment was previously challenged and
fully litigated, such requirements will not be required. Secondly, the judgment must have been
entered on the merits, rather than on procedural matters like PJ, venue or others. Lastly, the
judgment must have been finalised. This can still include future instalments to be paid by the
defendant. The effect of enforcing a judgment in a sister state is to assert res judicata, preventing
another party from enforcing a similar claim if judgment was already made on the same claim.
However, enforcement may be denied if the opponent can demonstrate that it would offend public
policy or extrinsic fraud is involved. However, tax judgments are still enforceable, as well as where
the judgment involved a mistake of fact or law.
2) Choice of Law
Where there is a conflict between the various laws that are applicable to a case, the applicable law
may be determined based on the substantive issue involved.
Under the First Restatement, the court can apply the ‘Vested Rights’ analysis. Firstly, the court
must determine the substantive issue involved, such as torts, contract or property. Secondly, the
court must determine which state’s law must be applied based on the issue. Lastly, the court must
localise that law and apply it to the case. This does not necessarily mean the law of that state
governs the case. It is the law that is determined by that state’s law which will govern. However,
such a law may not have to be applied to resolve all the issues in the case, in which different laws
can be applied instead under the concept of depecage. For example, tortious cases require the place
of injury’s law to be applied. Contract cases require the law of the place of performance to be
applied where performance issues are involved, or the place of execution of the contract to be
applied where formation issues are involved. However, contract cases generally require an existing
law applicable under the contract’s provision to be applied. But courts can depart from this
provision if the parties never gave true mutual assent as to this provision, that state’s law has no
connection with the issue of the case, or the provision is contrary to public policy. Property cases
depend on the type of property involved. For real property, the law of the location where the
property is located must be applied (the situs), unless another test is applied to determine the law.
For personal property in inheritance cases, the law of the deceased’s domicile at the time of his
death must be applied. However, that state’s conflict of law rules may require the application of
another state’s law under the concept of ‘renvoi’. For inter vivos transactions, the law of the state
where tangible objects are located must be applied, but intangible objects like bonds or promissory
notes are where the debtor’s domicile is located.
Under the Second Restatement, the court can apply the ‘Most Significant Relationship’ test. The
court must initially look at the connecting facts of the case. This could include the domiciles of the
parties or corporations, the place of injury in tortious cases, the place of performance or contract
negotiations in contract cases. If the connecting facts are based in a similar state, that state’s law
should be applied. If there are multiple states, the court should then apply the public policy
