2. Jurisdiction

3. Analysis of the case Southwest Livestock & Trucking Co. v. Ramon may have lacked a dispute settlement clause that indicate dispute resolution process, either litigation or arbitration. Almost all equipment leases and loan documents contain a choice of law clause setting out which jurisdiction’s law will govern construction and enforcement of the contract. This is especially important when the parties reside in or expect the contract to be performed (or assigned to someone) in multiple jurisdictions or have a nationwide practice.

4. Schaffer, Agusti and Earle (2009) give a quite clear definition of jurisdiction and its different types in this manner:

5. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide a case. The term has different meanings:

6. Territorial jurisdiction refers to the power of criminal courts to hear cases involving crimes committed within their territory.

7. In rem jurisdiction refers to a court’s power over property within its geographical boundaries.

9. Conflict of laws

10. When the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit decided to hear the case it was faced with conflict of laws of Mexico under which the case was judged on basis of breach of contract and of the State of Texas that evoked violation of usury laws. This conflict of law happened because the parties to the contract may have omitted to choose the law which they wished to govern their contract relationship mostly because they were from two different countries.

12. In the effort to help understand how the United States recognizes and enforces foreign laws and judgments, Folsom, Gordon, and Spanogle (2004) give following detailed descriptions of how courts proceed:

13. A court, in determining its own policies, has several options. It may reject the judgment of the foreign court and accord no effect to it, requiring a de novo trial on the merits in its own courts. Alternatively, it may accept the foreign court’s judgment as its own and enforce it in the same manner as a domestic judgment. Or, it may recognize the judgment by deciding that there are issues which do not need to be re-litigated, even though the court will only enforce domestic judgments. Where courts recognize foreign judgment, the party with a foreign court judgment must use it to obtain a domestic court judgment, which can then be enforced in the jurisdiction. Direct enforcement of foreign judgments is unusual; recognition of such judgments is more common.

14. Finally, there are courts which grant conditional recognition to foreign judgments. The conditions may relate to reciprocity of recognition between the two judicial systems involved, or to comity between nations. Where comity is the criterion, U.S. courts have tended to examine (1) the jurisdiction of the foreign court over both the persons and the subject matter involved, (2) the adequacy of the notice given, (3) the possibility of fraud in the decision, and (4) whether any public policy of the U.S. will be harmed by enforcement of the foreign judgment (Folsom, Gordon, & Spanogle 2004, p.306-307).Conclusion <br />The U.S. courts become a component of a legal network that stretches far beyond the borders of the United States when fact scenarios give rise to litigation about international jurisdictional, and conflict of laws analyses. The cases presented in this study illustrate the flexibility litigants have at the crowded intersection between jurisdiction, commerce, private expectations, and substantive law.<br />As the world economy grows and integrates, parties from more countries will interact with parties from the United States, and more cases will present legal analyses that will challenge traditional legal theories and require courts to balance a broader range of individual expectations.<br />Legal and economic structures, when permitted to serve as the arbitrators and organizers of human experience, hold together the fabric of any history, large or small. <br />The history of the coming era will be developed through case-by-case analyses of actors within this economy guided by legal actors capable of sophisticated decisions that effectively balance the differences between legal systems. <br />References<br />Folsom, R.H., Gordon, M.W., & Spanogle, J.A. (2004). International business transaction in nutshell. West, a Thomas business. St. Paul MN<br />Jones, J.R. (2010). Choice of law: significant relationships and the party autonomy rule. Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://www.leasecollect.org/cgi-bin/news/news.pl?record=14<br />Schaffer, R., Agusti, F., & Earle, B. (2009). International business law and its environment. South-Western Cengage Learning. Mason OH<br />United States court of appeals fifth district. (2010). Southwest Livestock & Trucking Co. v. Ramon. 169 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 1999). Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://s3.amazonaws.com/ficheros-historico/1_3/Im_1_3_18389886_in1.CV0.wpd.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=1V02D0W3KSR4KHZ90B82&Expires=1292211257&Signature=vaHrMq0u4TFt3pO0APvbZb6AuBs%3D<br />Walker, A.J. (2010). Conflict of laws analyses for the era of free. Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://www.auilr.org/pdf/20/20-6-2.pdf<br />