Without giving effect to...

Question

What does "whithout giving effect to any conflict of law principles" mean here?
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, it may be amended only by writing signed by both of the parties, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Bulgaria and Poland without giving effect to any conflict of law principles.
Thank you for your help!
Kamil

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]What does "whithout giving effect to any conflict of law principles" mean here? This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between ... shall be construed in accordance withthe laws of Bulgaria and Poland without giving effect to any conflict of law principles.[/nq]
If the sentence is supposed to mean conformity to
written law, we prefer a simpler phrase like "shall not conflict with any law."
National legal systems are of two main types:
# 1 = "Napoleonic" where the whole of the law
must be codified (written).
# 2 = "Common law" with three sources of law
(a = law codes, b = judicial precedent in earlier
decisions, c = agreed unwritten "common law.")
The phrase "conflict of law principles" may be
interpreted as invoking future conflicts between #1 and #2c which is probably at odds with its general intent. This is why a simpler phrase is preferable.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]What does "whithout giving effect to any conflict of law principles" mean here? This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between ... laws of Bulgaria and Poland without giving effect to any conflict of law principles. Thank you for your help! Kamil[/nq]
It's legalese, which looks like but is not the same as plain English...
The key phrase is "shall be construed... without giving effect to...". This means that if a court is called upon to settle a dispute over the agreement, the court should interpret it (construe it) according to both Bulgarian law and Polish law. But if the different laws result in different interpretations, the court should not do what it normally would do: resort to rules that apply when laws conflict.

Chris Green

Usenet · Answer

But I don't think that's what it's supposed to mean. "Conflict of law" is a term of art; it does not have its plain-English meaning.

What it seems to mean is that conflict-of-law arguments are not to be resorted to when attempting to interpret the agreement. Every country's courts (and in the US, every state's courts) have their own conflict-of-law principles. These can be invoked to, for example, force the case to be heard in a certain court or to apply the laws of a certain country (or state) to the case.
How it would still be possible to make sense of the agreement if there were a material conflict between Polish and Bulgarian law is a question that such a clause does not effectively answer.
[nq:1]National legal systems are of two main types: # 1 = "Napoleonic" where the whole of the law must be ... and #2c which is probably at odds with its general intent. This is why a simpler phrase is preferable.[/nq]
"Common law" wouldn't have any application in Poland or Bulgaria, though. Both are civil-law countries; Poland has laws that are a mixture of Napoleonic Code and Communist law, while Bulgaria never adopted the Napoleonic Code. (CIA World Factbook)

Chris Green

Without giving effect to...

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions