The parties, one in England and one in Scotland agreed to perform certain actions in Scotland. Any dispute was to be settled by arbitration, but it was not said whether this would be in England or Scotland. The curial law of arbitration would decide whether an appeal lay to the High court in England or the Court of Session In Scotland.
Held: The crucial question in determining what was the law governing the contract was to ask: ‘what is the system of law with which the transaction has the closest and most real connection? ‘
Lord Denning MR: ‘I am confirmed in this view by the subsequent conduct of the parties. This is always available to aid the interpretation of a contract and to find out its closest connections. On two occasions the parties seem to have assumed that the transaction was governed by English law.’
Widgery LJ agreed that English was the proper law of the contract: ‘To solve a problem such as arises in this case one looks first at the express terms of the contract to see whether that intention is there to be found. If it is not, then in my judgment the next step is to consider the conduct of the parties to see whether that conduct shows that a decision in regard to the proper law of the contract can be inferred from it. If the parties’ conduct shows that they have adopted a particular view with regard to the proper law, then it may be inferred that they have agreed that that law shall govern the contract accordingly.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Davies LJ
Citations:
[1969] 1 WLR 377
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd v James Miller and Partners Ltd HL 1970
The parties disagreed as to the curial law of an arbitration agreement. The proper law of the building contract and the arbitration agreement was English but the reference was conducted in Scotland.
Held: Evidence of behaviour after a contract . .
Cited – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Cited – Lexington Insurance Co v AGF Insurance Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
The respondent insurers had been held liable in Washington, and had been granted indemnity against the appellants by the Court of Appeal. The insurance contract had been under the law of Pennsylvania, but that of the re-insurance under the law of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.251074
