Essay Example: Some Cases of Private International Law Implication

John versus Claudia

One notable fact of the case is that there is no legal binding between John and Claudia. Therefore, if John is to sue Claudia, then the case would be on an individual level. However, a tort was committed. By Claudia refusing to bear the cost of the unplanned cancellation of the marriage, she causes not only financial problems but also emotional distress. The key question that remains is whether the court in Scotland has legal jurisdiction over the case (Stone, 2014).

John is domiciled in Scotland Claudia, on the other hand, is a born Scottish. It, therefore, follows that legal jurisdiction should take place in Scotland and not in the plaintiff's place of birth (Stone, 2014). The only significant challenge is the justification of the union. Provisions of private law mostly cater for legal marriages as justified by various provisions. One important provision is the Lex Fori. According to this provision, any dispute arising from legal unions are to be handled in the state where the couple have sought to make their matrimonial home (Ryngaert, 2015). Although the marriage was not official, there was an intent, therefore, justifying the Scottish court's involvement.

Lastly, the private international laws full mutability doctrine stipulates the jurisdiction in the event of a dispute (Stone, 2014). According to this doctrine, any relation between a couple that results in litigation is under the full jurisdiction of the court of the latest domicile. This is independent of whether this relation was effected before, during or after the union (Stone, 2014). Thus Claudia on her part if legible to answer for emotional distress which she has caused John.

John versus Chris.

The case of John and Chris can be viewed in two perspectives. The first perspective is fraud on the part of Chris and negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Therefore, if John is to take legal action against Chris, then the first consideration for the judge would be whether a tort was committed. The second consideration is the legal jurisdiction of the state to pursue the case as provided for in Private international law.

In the event that Chris fraudulently sold a defective piano in London. Then the court will provide all legal jurisprudence to the court in the country in which the sale took place (Ryngaert, 2015). Similarly, if it is established that the tort was negligence of the Piano's manufacture, then the case should be handled by a court in the manufacturer's locale. This decision is based on the case of Thompson vs. Distillers (Alter, 2014).

In this jurisprudence, the tort was considered in three perspectives; place of manufacture, the original point of sale, and point of resale. The case revolved around a drug that was consumed by the mother of a child who was born defective. The Australian court was to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the case (Alter, 2014). The defendants suggested that the tort was committed at the point of manufacture and not at the point of retail. The drug was consumed in Australia, and its effects were only becoming evident after it emerged that the fetus was damaged.

Therefore, according to this particular case, a tort is committed when loss, injury or damage arises as a result of the breach of duty. Therefore, John is advised to pursue legal redress in the London court as this is the point of sale of the Piano. Notably, Chris' defense cannot involve the manufacturer since the Piano was not a direct sale, rather a second-hand transaction.

John versus Forever Company

If John seeks to sue the wedding planners, then he has to establish proof of mischief on the part of the forever company. This might be difficult if the contract entered between John and the wedding planner did not stipulate the necessary actions in the event of cancellations. It may turn out true that the company indeed has a no refunds' policy (Stone, 2014). The difficulty in the case is also compounded by the fact that the wedding probably applied the freedom of contract policy and chose all litigations to be in Cyprus increasing costs on John. Therefore, pursuing such a case is futile in the long run.

In international private law, courts and other legal entities recognize the contractual clause that specifies the venue, as determined by the contracting parties, for litigation. This provision is known as the forum selection clause (Alter, 2014). Furthermore, freedom of contract policy allows the two sides to select the laws and location that most suits them. However, a potential problem with the law is that vendors often select venues that are far away from their buyers. This move is intended to discourage legal action against them in the case of breach of contract.

References

Alter, K.J. (2014). The new terrain of international law: Courts, politics, rights. Princeton University Press

Ryngaert, C. (2015). Jurisdiction in international law. OUP Oxford

Stone, P. (2014). EU private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing.