Talk:Conflict of contract laws

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

what are the Implications of a contract within a contract

Unless I miss some sublety, there are no implications. If contractual documents are incorporated by reference into the main contract, they are all treated as a single agreement. But if each document is separate, albeit linked, say, because they deal with different aspects of the same transaction but with performance in different states, they will each be dealt with under their own proper laws. David91 01:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: depecage --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I have removed the unsourced information and original research in the article, per WP:V. This could develop into a reasonable article, this will give a cleaner slate to work from. I have also changed the general references list into a further reading section. // Timothy :: talk 07:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have engaged in malicious WP:VANDALISM consisting of the bad faith removal of properly referenced content. You know perfectly well that there is no way that treatises written by Morris or Anton, or published by Stevens or Green are not reliable. James500 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with James500. This is an entirely egregious removal of well-sourced accurate material. Tooncool64 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the passages that were at the beginning of their sections. The other two passages would probably not be very informative without the context they were in, and I do not have time to reference the entire preceding text of those sections right now. (Much of the uncited material was verifiable, but I do not have time to reference all of it right now). James500 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move as proposed, with the exception of retaining the spelling in Characterisation (law). If that name proves to be controversial, please open a separate discussion for it. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– These articles all use parentheses to indicate a subtopic or intersection of topics, rather than for disambiguation. We write "Prisons in Chile", not "Prison (Chile)", and "Railway electrification system" not "Railway (electric)". The nominated articles are in Category:Conflict of laws. Most are the intersection of "Conflict of laws" with some legal field. I suggest the name "X (conflict)" should be "conflict of X laws"; other possibilities are "Conflict of laws and X" or "X and conflict of laws".

The last three listed names are somewhat different:

"Procedure" is not a field of law, and the nature of the intersection between "procedure" and "conflict of laws" suggests a different style of compound title: "Procedure in conflict of laws"; "procedural questions in private international law" ;...?
"Characterisation" appears to be a term specific to conflict of laws, so parenthetic disambiguation is appropriate (to distinguish it from other Characterisation). But "conflict" is inadequate as a disambiguator, since the word is itself very ambiguous. I suggest "Characterization (law)" as being shorter than, and hence preferable to, "Characterization (conflict of laws)". Note that I change "-isation" to "-ization"; the article claims that in English law it is called "classification". If that is so, then I presume "Characterization" is the US name? In which case, use the US spelling.
"Get (conflict)" seems needlessly cryptic. jnestorius^(talk) 19:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on all counts albeit with the slight caveat that Characterisation (conflict) should be moved to Characterisation (law); as the initial editor preferred British English it should be kept. The proposed changes clearly reflect current naming policy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 10:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer regarding the unnecessary spelling change. Even if characterisation/characterization is not used in this sense in England and Wales (can this be demonstrated?), what about elsewhere in the British Isles or in the Commonwealth? Unless it can be shown that this term is only used in North America, per WP:ENGVAR, there is no reason to change the spelling used in Characterisation (conflict) if it is moved. Some standardized rigour (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, current titles are almost useless as indicators of what the articles are about.--Kotniski (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro[edit]

I have some significant concerns about the intro to this article.

Standard policy on Wikipedia is to write an introduction like an introduction so that an intelligent layman could understand the issues (see WP:LEAD - "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects... It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). This just jumps to "what is the answer" like a 4 year old might blurt out.
The article states a proposition of law like it is a fact for all 212 countries in the world. That is highly questionable. That may be the general rule in most common law systems. It may even be a common law in civil legal systems. But it is far from a law of universal application - particularly in states where the courts do not apply choice of law issues but simply decide everything under domestic legislation (like, for example, Yemen).
The answer is not even really accurate for common law countries. The essential validity is goverend by the proper law, but the formal validity is not. Furthermore, various other matters relating to contracts are not regulated by the proper law (other than formal validity), including remedies (lex fori), capacity (see Banco de Bilbao v Sancha [1938] 2 KB 176), estoppel (lex fori - rule of evidence), limitation periods, and applicable filing requirements (varies).

Needs a pretty serious rewrite. I'll try and do it if I have time, but I am not likely to be able to get to it anytime soon.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 06:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]