Applying Foreign Law in a Contract Dispute

The assignment content discusses a contract breach dispute between Omar Alhusayni (Mr. Exec) and ARGCO, applying Oregon Rules to determine which law should govern the issue. The rules suggest that Argentina law should apply as it has the most relevant connection with the transaction and parties, being the place of subject matter and domicile of JVCO. Although California law may seem favorable for ARGCO's claim due to its longer limitations period, Argentina law is more suitable based on the connections to the transaction and parties.

Omar Alhusayni
Essay (4)
Issue:
Under Oregon Rules applicable to breach of contract claims (if they were
enacted in California), Argentina Law should apply to the issue of whether Exec
breached the Employment Agreement.
Rules:
When there is no choice of law has been made by the parties, the rights and
duties of the parties with regard to an issue in a contract are governed by the law
that is the most appropriate for a resolution of that issue. The most appropriate
law can be 1)the law of the state that has a relevant connection with the
transaction or the parties, such as the place of negotiation, making, performance
or subject matter of the contract, or the domicile, habitual residence or pertinent
place of business of a party, 2)or the law of the state that has the relative strength
and pertinence of these policies in: “(a) Meeting the needs and giving effect to the
policies of the interstate and international systems; and (b) Facilitating the
planning of transactions, protecting a party from undue imposition by another
party, giving effect to justified expectations of the parties concerning which state’s
law applies to the issue and minimizing adverse effects on strong legal policies of
other states.” Or.Rev.STAT.ANN.Section15.360(2013)
Application:
Here, according to Oregon Rules, when there is no effective choice of law
made by Mr. Exec and ARGCO, Argentina law should apply, because Argentina

has the most relevant connections with the transactions and the parties of the
issue . To clarify, Argentina is the place of the subject matter of the contract,
which is exerting the parties’ effort to develop the business of JVCO by transferring
confidential technology from USCO to JVCO in Argentina. and Argentina is the
domicile of JVCO.
On the other hand, it might be a noticeable argument to say that California
law should apply, because When evaluating relative strength and pertinence of the
underlying policies, California law prevails because it’s limitations period of such
a claim is longer than the limitations period of Argentina, which means California
law is more appropriate to be applied in order to satisfy the needs of interstate and
international systems as to protect a party from undue imposition by another
party, such as the disclosure of trade secrets of USCO by Mr. Exec.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, notwithstanding that California law is favoring ARGCO’s
claim, Argentina law should apply here based on the fact that Argentina has the
most relevant connection with the transaction and parties involving this issue.