i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

On drafting agreements on choice of law

Adrian Briggs *

Commercial agreements often contain elaborate provisions for jurisdiction over disputes which may arise, and some of these have been handed down from document to document over the course of more than a decade. But hardly any of them make a comparable attempt to draft an agreement on choice of law which will be co-terminous with the agreement on jurisdiction. This short paper asks why this should be so, and whether there is any rational justification for such failures. It concludes that there is none, and proposes that in this important area of commercial drafting some new thinking is urgently needed.
In an earlier paper,1 it was noted that the problems presented by cumulation of remedies in the conflict of laws may be ameliorated by a well-drafted choice of law agreement but it was also observed in passing that this was a rarity in practice. It is now timely to make a brief return to this issue. Anyone leafing through the last 20 years of Lloyd’s Reports will be struck by the number of reported jurisdictional disputes which turn on the proper construction and effect of an agreement on choice of court. It is hard to believe that any other single contractual provision has generated such intensity of concern in so many recent cases. Yet the issue is usually only one of construction: is the clause exclusive, non-exclusive, one-sidedly-exclusive? Have the parties agreed to submit their disputes, or to submit themselves,2 to the nominated court? What is its material scope: does it extend beyond claims which are strictly contractual in nature, et cetera ? All boil down to a question of construction; and disputes as to construction are indications that the draftsmanship was not as skilled and precise as it should have been. There certainly are some elaborate jurisdiction agreements in the market, though being wordy does not guarantee quality. In banking loan documentation, for example, a common form of jurisdiction clause has been in use for well over a decade;3 and, even though its deficiencies have become more apparent with the passing of years and the judicial development of the law, there appears to be a tacit agreement among players in the field not to break ranks and redraft it, for fear of suggesting that it has been in need of refurbishment for a very long time. Yet, even if shortcomings can be pointed out, it is at

389

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.