“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”

Instant Access to Thousands of Journals for just $40/month

Choice of law and the home-court advantage: evidence

This paper tests three separate hypotheses about inherent biases in the application of modern choice of law rules: (1) Brilmayer's 1980 hypothesis that such rules camouflage 'pro-resident, pro-forum-law, pro-recovery' biases, (2) Borchers's 1992 hypothesis that courts do not consistently apply the principles of the choice of law rule they claim to be applying, and (3) an economic hypothesis, presented in the paper, that only a 'pro-forum-law' bias is unambiguously consistent with economic efficiency, simply because it conserves the resources of the court and bar in the forum state. I find relatively strong support for the 'pro-recovery' bias of courts, weaker support for 'pro-forum-law' bias, and reject the 'pro-resident' bias. If anything, states retaining the rigid choice of law rules are more likely to favor their residents. Moreover, I reject Borchers's claim that courts do not take the modern approaches seriously. Indeed, in general, they follow Borchers's own predictions. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Law and Economics Review Oxford University Press

Choice of law and the home-court advantage: evidence

Abstract

This paper tests three separate hypotheses about inherent biases in the application of modern choice of law rules: (1) Brilmayer's 1980 hypothesis that such rules camouflage 'pro-resident, pro-forum-law, pro-recovery' biases, (2) Borchers's 1992 hypothesis that courts do not consistently apply the principles of the choice of law rule they claim to be applying, and (3) an economic hypothesis, presented in the paper, that only a 'pro-forum-law' bias is unambiguously consistent with economic efficiency, simply because it conserves the resources of the court and bar in the forum state. I find relatively strong support for the 'pro-recovery' bias of courts, weaker support for 'pro-forum-law' bias, and reject the 'pro-resident' bias. If anything, states retaining the rigid choice of law rules are more likely to favor their residents. Moreover, I reject Borchers's claim that courts do not take the modern approaches seriously. Indeed, in general, they follow Borchers's own predictions.
Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/choice-of-law-and-the-home-court-advantage-evidence-kQgW0kJSXc

Sorry, we don’t have permission to share this article on DeepDyve,
but here are related articles that you can start reading right now:

Explore the DeepDyve Library

How DeepDyve Works

Spend time researching, not time worrying you’re buying articles that might not be useful.

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from Springer, Elsevier, Nature, IEEE, Wiley-Blackwell and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Simple and Affordable Pricing

14-day free trial. Cancel anytime, with a 30-day money-back guarantee.

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$40/month

Best Deal — 25% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 25% off!
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$30/month
billed annually