1

If one law is valid in one jurisdiction say country A Wich says you must use digital currency on Sundays and another law opposing that law is there in another jurdiction say country B which say you must not use digital currency on Sundays. A person sitting in one legislation has accepted that the laws of the other legislation applies to him via a contract ( many contracts say "you subject yourself to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of country B") or those laws apply because he trades (does business which involves a digital currency) in those countries.What should he do use or not use digital currency on sundays?

  • What Jurisdiction are you in? Your question is still confusing in terminology and some words seem misspelt or misused. – hszmv Nov 09 '20 at 18:11
  • Which words are you talking about? –  Nov 09 '20 at 18:11
  • Say you are in an imaginary country enasia which has a law that s do not use digital currency and you sign an agreement that say you subject yourself to the laws of eukaria another country where –  Nov 09 '20 at 18:13
  • the law says do use digital currency. The which countries law is to be obeyed? –  Nov 09 '20 at 18:14

1 Answers1

3

What should he do use or not use digital currency on sundays?

If I understand correctly, you are asking about a scenario where the parties agree that the governing law will be that of jurisdiction B notwithstanding that the contract, or the relevant part thereof, will be performed in jurisdiction A.

If A and B were [in] different countries, the issue could depend on what (if any) international treaties binding both countries provide regarding a conflict of laws. Absent any realistic specifics (enasia and eukaria are not realistic), let's assume that A means the U.S. or is some jurisdiction in the U.S.

The contractually chosen law (jurisdiction B) would apply unless doing so contravenes policy restrictions of the jurisdiction where the contract is performed (jurisdiction A). Those policy restrictions could be public policy, legislation, or legislative intent that can be inferred from jurisdiction A's laws. For instance, see Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 937 (9th Cir. 2011):

The law of the state chosen by the parties ... will be applied ... unless ... application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state[.]

(citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws at § 187(b)).

Note that discrepancies between A's law and B's law do not necessarily result in a material detriment to A's policy, and it is unclear from your post whether refraining from using digital currency on Sundays would be such case. One would need to ascertain A's public policy and/or legislative intent (if the relevant legislation has been enacted).

Iñaki Viggers
  • 1
  • 4
  • 68
  • 95