Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:45:40.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Prorogation Clauses in International Contracts1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

A. Shaki
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , May 1966 , pp. 366 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Usually termed a “derogation clause”.

3 See Ehrenzweig, A. A., Conflict of Laws (West Publishing Co., 1962) §§41, p. 147.Google Scholar

4 Dicey, , Conflict of Laws, 7th ed., rule 203, sub-rule, p. 1085.Google Scholar

6 [1957] 1 W.L.R. 815; [1957] 2 All E.R. 707.

6 [1958] 1 All E.R. 333.

7 In this respect the Court fully endorsed MacKinnon's, L.J. views expressed in Racecourse Betting Control Board v. Secretary of State for Air [1944] 1 All E.R. 60Google Scholar; 113 L.J. Ch. 129.

8 Under rr. 467(5)(a) and 467(5)(c) of the new Israel Rules of Procedure, 1963. (While the submission to the “proper law” of Israel is expressly provided for; we doubt whether this is the case for submission to Israel jurisdiction.)

9 Cf. Johnson v. Machielsne (1811) 3 Camp. 44, 170 E.R. 1300, where Lord Ellenborough expresses his views as to the propriety of clauses of jurisdiction imposed by the authorities.

10 See Hoerter v. Hanover Caoutchouc, Gutta Percha & Telegraph Works (1893), 10 T.L.R. 22, 103, (C.A.).

11 (1965) 19 P.D. Vol. 1, p. 303.

12 Supra, n. 6.

13 (1963) 17 P.D. 646. (For a full commentary by the author on this case, see (1963) 20 HaPraklit, 24.)

14 Cohn J. also stressed the penal and discriminatory character of the decree.

15 [1939] 4 All E.R. 16.

10 Supra, n. 7.

17 Sussmann J. expressly adopted this proposition in his detailed judgment, op. cit., at p. 165.

18 Cf. Oppenheimer v. Louis Rosenthal Co., [1937] 1 All E.R. 23, 25–26, where Slesser J. makes use of the term.