Talk:Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No comprende[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a very hard time understanding this article. Is it just me? Am I a dummy or is this article a bit too jargony? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Laws categories[edit]

I have changed the categories on this case, in two ways:

1. I have added a general category of "Conflict of Laws", because this is a case on conflict of laws from the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, and states the conflict of law rules that are part of the law of Nova Scotia. Since there is no category on Canadian conflict of laws, the general category must be used to show that this case is relevant to Canada. If the only category used is one referring to Britain, it is too narrow. This case is not solely about conflict of laws in Britain, and a narrow category that does not include the subject-matter of the article should not be used in isolation.

2. I have changed the category "Conflict of Laws in the United Kingdom" to "Conflict of Laws in England". The JCPC decision referred only to English law in its decision. It does not say whether that same principle is adopted in the civil law jurisdiction of Scotland. Since the decision only refers to the common law of England, it is inaccurate to conclude that it applies to all British law, including the civil law of Scotland.

3. In considering these points, it is important to remember that the Judicial Committee is not a court to determine English or Scottish law, except in very narrow circumstances. It was not an appeal court for England, Scotland, or the UK. It was an appeal court for British possessions overseas, and its decisions are not, strictly speaking, binding on British courts. Highly persuasive, but not binding. As a matter of precedent / stare decisis, this decision was only binding on the courts of Nova Scotia, and by extension, the other Canadian courts. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]