Conflict, balancing of interests, and the exercise of jurisdiction to prescribe: reflections on the Insurance Antitrust Case

Article Abstract:

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Insurance Antitrust Case, Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, turned on whether there was conflict between British and U.S. antitrust law. The majority held that conflict occurs only when compliance with one country's law would constitute violation of the other country's law. Both the majority and the dissent cited the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, but reached opposite conclusions. However, conflicts of interests and priorities need to be considered as well as statutory conflicts in determining whether jurisdiction should be exercised over activities in another nation.

Editorial, United Kingdom, United States, Cases, Insurance industry, Antitrust law, Conflict of laws, international

---

Rules of origin, the Canada-U.S. FTA and the Honda case

Article Abstract:

The US and Canada agreed to assess the nationality of Japanese cars assembled in Canada and containing American engines for purposes of duty-free import qualifications under the Free Trade Agreement by crediting domestic assembly and processing against foreign origin. Under this scheme, US or Canadian labor, if significant to change the original tariff classification of the item and if enough to account for more than half of the part's or car's construction, would transform the foreign origin of the item to domestic. This would qualify the car or part for duty-free import into Canada from the US or vice versa.

Interpretation and construction, Laws, regulations and rules, Commercial treaties, Trade agreements, Rules of origin (International trade), Rules of origin, Duty-free importation, Duty free importation

---

Forum non conveniens and antisuit injunctions: an update

Article Abstract:

A decision by the High Court of Australia not to dismiss a suit brought in a federal court in New Jersey set a good standard for parties that hope to evade legal contest by changing international jurisdictions. One country's forum should not accept a case if it is better handled in another forum. Courts should generally refrain from accepting litigation begun in another country. Australia's High Court reversed a decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Australia, International aspects, Injunctions, Forum non conveniens

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Guns, crime, and academics: some reflections on the gun control debate. Violence, guns, and drugs: a cross-country analysis
• Abstracts: Who decides child's best interests? In grandparent visitation disputes, parents do, unless unfit, one court says
• Abstracts: Ambiguity and discretion in the new guidelines: some implications for practitioners. Overview of the 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines
• Abstracts: Tribunal liberates Victorian newsagents and sub-agents. Exercising contractual rights and imposing restrictive conditions - a misuse of market power?
• Abstracts: Conflicts of interest on the rise; entertainment lawyers face ethics problems. Suits over violent art proliferate

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.