Contents

Choice Of Law ClauseEdit

Choice of law clauses play a central role in contract drafting by specifying which jurisdiction’s law will govern interpretation, formation, and enforcement of the agreement. They sit alongside dispute-resolution mechanisms to provide a predictable framework for risk allocation and damages. In domestic arrangements as well as cross-border transactions, parties use these clauses to reduce uncertainty, streamline negotiations, and shield themselves from hostile regulatory spillovers. The clause is not the same as a forum-selection clause, which designates where disputes will be heard; it is about which substantive rules of law will guide the contract.

From a practical standpoint, a well-drafted choice of law clause reflects a preference for predictability, economic efficiency, and respect for private ordering. When parties can freely decide the governing law, they tend to choose a system with stable contract doctrine, clear interpretive rules, and reliable remedies. This reduces litigation costs and minimizes the risk that a court will apply a law with unstable or unfamiliar doctrines that could undermine commercial expectations. In international dealings, the clause helps bridge differences in legal cultures and reduces the chance that a contract will be voided or reinterpreted on pragmatic grounds after disputes arise. contract conflict of laws governing law

Core elements

  • Express governing law and scope

    • A typical choice of law clause specifies the exact body of law that will govern the contract, sometimes identifying the jurisdiction by name or describing the legal regime (for example, a particular state's commercial code or a national civil code). It may cover the entire contract or limit itself to core provisions like interpretation, validity, and performance. The clause can be narrowly tailored or broadly inclusive depending on the parties’ risk posture. See choice of law clause and governing law.

  • Relationship to forum and dispute resolution

    • While a forum selection clause fixes the forum or arbitration venue, the governing law clause fixes which substantive rules apply. Together, they form a comprehensive dispute framework. In practice, parties often harmonize the two to avoid cross-purposes, though there can be tension if the chosen law is not enforceable in the proposed forum or if arbitration rules reference a different governing law. See forum selection clause and arbitration.

  • Public policy, mandatory rules, and enforceability

    • Courts routinely assess whether applying the chosen law would violate public policy or mandatory rules of the jurisdiction with the strongest interest in the dispute. Even with a strong private agreement, mandatory protections—such as consumer or employment protections—can override a contract’s governing law in certain contexts. The doctrine of public policy and related concepts like unconscionability provide checks on private ordering. See public policy and unconscionability.

  • Severability and reformability

    • Many clauses include severability provisions to preserve the remainder of the agreement if any portion of the clause is deemed unenforceable. Some contracts contemplate renegotiation or reformation if material changes occur in the governing law, especially in long-term arrangements. See severability.

  • Public international-law considerations

    • In cross-border deals, the clause may address how to handle conflict-of-laws questions across jurisdictions, including issues of recognition and enforcement of judgments under instruments such as the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, when arbitration is involved. See conflict of laws.

Domestic versus international practice

  • Domestic contracts

    • In the home market, parties tend to select governing law from among familiar, well-developed systems that offer clear doctrine on contract formation, interpretation, and remedies. This choice can simplify enforcement and reduce the risk of unexpected doctrines being applied by a foreign court. See contract and governing law.

  • International contracts

    • International deals raise additional questions about competing legal cultures, forum mechanics, and cross-border enforcement. A neutral, predictable governing law—often from a jurisdiction renowned for its contract law—can be attractive to both sides. Arbitration-friendly environments frequently harmonize well with explicit governing law provisions. See lex mercatoria and conflict of laws.

  • Public policy and mandatory rules in cross-border contexts

    • Even with an international clause, each participating jurisdiction may resist applying another country’s law to protect its own public policies. Critics of international private law often highlight the risk of undercutting domestic protections, while supporters argue that private ordering should prevail where it does not blatantly violate core statutory safeguards. See public policy.

Controversies and debates

  • Predictability vs. fairness

    • Proponents of robust choice of law clauses emphasize freedom of contract and predictability. They argue that allowing parties to decide the governing law reduces opportunistic litigation strategies and fosters investment. Critics warn that private ordering can disadvantage weaker parties if bargaining power is uneven. From a cautious, rights-respecting perspective, courts often rely on public policy and unequal bargaining remedies to balance these concerns. See contract and conflict of laws.

  • Cross-border enforcement and sovereignty

    • Controversy arises when a chosen law is significantly different from the law of the forum or the domestic regime where enforcement will occur. Supporters contend that allowing private parties to select law respects sovereignty and avoids external meddling in commercial matters. Critics, sometimes labeled as wokes or reform-minded, may argue that such clauses let powerful actors evade domestic protections. The conservative view typically emphasizes that while sovereignty matters, well-crafted clauses increase certainty and reduce the risk of government overreach in commercial disputes. See sovereignty and public policy.

  • Bargaining power and access to remedies

    • A central debate is whether private law choice truly reflects equal bargaining power. In settings with unequal leverage, there is concern that one party could push the governing law toward a regime with fewer protections or more favorable remedies for its interests. Supporters counter that contract freedom is the best mechanism for risk allocation and that enforceability rules and mandatory protections still apply in significant ways. See bargaining power and remedies.

  • Woke criticisms and practical defenses

    • Critics sometimes claim that choice of law clauses can export or impose foreign regulatory regimes onto domestic markets or undermine essential protections. In a robust, market-oriented view, proponents argue that the clause merely ensures predictability and reduces the agenda-driven uncertainties created by inconsistent application of laws across borders. They contend that domestic protections remain available through mandatory rules and public policy exceptions, and that contractual freedom aligns with long-standing principles of private ordering and rule of law. See private ordering and public policy.

  • Public policy exceptions and mandatory rules

    • Courts typically reserve the right to disregard a chosen law if applying it would violate fundamental policies or override essential protections. This acts as a safety valve against pure forum shopping or exploitation. Conservatives emphasize that while this check exists, it should not be construed as a ban on private contracting, but as a necessary safeguard against abusive or unconscionable arrangements. See public policy and unconscionability.

Practical guidance for drafters

  • Be explicit and precise

    • Specify the governing law with clarity and avoid open-ended phrasing. Include references to the exact statute, code, or recognized body of law. See governing law.

  • Align with enforcement strategy

    • Consider how the choice of law interacts with potential enforcement venues and remedies. Coordinate with any forum selection or arbitration clauses to minimize conflicts and maximize predictability. See forum selection clause and arbitration.

  • Account for mandatory protections

    • Acknowledge that certain protections are non-derogable by contract in many jurisdictions. Where appropriate, ensure the contract does not attempt to bypass essential safeguards, and anticipate public policy challenges. See public policy and unconscionability.

  • Anticipate cross-border risk

    • In international deals, select a governing law that has well-developed contract doctrines and reliable enforcement. Consider neutral or widely respected systems to minimize disputes about interpretive standards. See conflict of laws and lex mercatoria.

  • Use complementary clauses

  • Consider severability and reform

    • Include severability provisions so that the rest of the contract remains valid if a portion of the clause is deemed unenforceable. See severability.

  • Revisit for changes in law

    • For long-running agreements, build in a mechanism to revisit the governing law if material changes occur in the chosen regime or in the domestic or international legal landscape. See reformation.

See also