Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
without giving effect to conflict of laws
English answer:
without regard to the choice-of-law provisions
Added to glossary by
Polangmar
Jul 27, 2010 00:17
13 yrs ago
191 viewers *
English term
Canada
Conference interpreter, MBA, ATIO, ATA
Native in: Chinese 
Works in: Chinese to English, English to Chinese, Russian to Chinese, and 8 more.
without giving effect to conflict of laws
English
Law/Patents
Law: Contract(s)
governing law
What does this phrase "without giving effect to conflict of laws" mean?
Without considering ...?
e.g.
Governing Law: The Contest and the rights and obligations of all entrants and Submissions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without effect to any principles of conflicts of law, and the federal law of the United States.
Of Virginia laws and principles of conflicts of law, which will take precedence?
Cf:
How should I interpret the phrase "without giving effect to conflict of laws"?
Accepted Answer
This language is used to say that the preceding statement is legal and binding - UNLESS it is in conflict with a current or future law in which case that law would prevail (and set the precedence for that area of the contract).
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/10xps-how-should-i-inter...
Is this explanation correct in this web link?
Without considering ...?
e.g.
Governing Law: The Contest and the rights and obligations of all entrants and Submissions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without effect to any principles of conflicts of law, and the federal law of the United States.
Of Virginia laws and principles of conflicts of law, which will take precedence?
Cf:
How should I interpret the phrase "without giving effect to conflict of laws"?
Accepted Answer
This language is used to say that the preceding statement is legal and binding - UNLESS it is in conflict with a current or future law in which case that law would prevail (and set the precedence for that area of the contract).
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/10xps-how-should-i-inter...
Is this explanation correct in this web link?
Change log
Aug 1, 2010 23:10: Polangmar changed "Field (specific)" from "Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright" to "Law: Contract(s)"
Aug 11, 2010 15:55: Polangmar changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/67316">Edward LIU's</a> old entry - "without giving effect to conflict of laws"" to ""without regard to the choice of law provisions""
Nov 21, 2015 22:23: Polangmar changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/661344">Polangmar's</a> old entry - "without giving effect to conflict of laws"" to ""without regard to the choice of law provisions""
Responses
+1
19 hrs
Selected
without regard to the choice of law provisions
A very good explanation below.
Conflict of Law Provisions
Everyone has seen it in their contracts and wondered what it means. It is always in the miscellaneous section at the end of agreements. It usually says something like, “without regard to the conflicts of law provisions therein.” The full text is “This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions therein.” Why is it included?
This provision is used to take interpretation of an agreement outside of the state law where a cause of action occurs. For instance, if you have an agreement with a company that is in California there could be a cause of action that arises in California. However, you want the laws of Texas to apply. You have added a “choice of law” provision for that very reason. Unfortunately, most states have a rule that says the law of the state where the cause of action arose governs that cause of action. This would mean that if the cause of action happened in California, even if you said you wanted Texas law to aply, Texas law would point back to California. By adding the "without regard to the conflicts of law provision" we are able to negate the Texas law that points back to California. that is why most choice of law provisions contain the described clause and you should think about verifying that your's does too.
http://blog.sprosslaw.com/2008/05/conflict-of-law.html
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2010-07-27 19:32:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It should be "the choice-of-law provisions" but this expression is rarely hyphenated.
Conflict of Law Provisions
Everyone has seen it in their contracts and wondered what it means. It is always in the miscellaneous section at the end of agreements. It usually says something like, “without regard to the conflicts of law provisions therein.” The full text is “This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions therein.” Why is it included?
This provision is used to take interpretation of an agreement outside of the state law where a cause of action occurs. For instance, if you have an agreement with a company that is in California there could be a cause of action that arises in California. However, you want the laws of Texas to apply. You have added a “choice of law” provision for that very reason. Unfortunately, most states have a rule that says the law of the state where the cause of action arose governs that cause of action. This would mean that if the cause of action happened in California, even if you said you wanted Texas law to aply, Texas law would point back to California. By adding the "without regard to the conflicts of law provision" we are able to negate the Texas law that points back to California. that is why most choice of law provisions contain the described clause and you should think about verifying that your's does too.
http://blog.sprosslaw.com/2008/05/conflict-of-law.html
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2010-07-27 19:32:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It should be "the choice-of-law provisions" but this expression is rarely hyphenated.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you very much."
2 days 15 hrs
No - it means rules of "private international law"
The short answer to your specific question is: "No."
The answer which you provide is entirely wrong, and shows an absence of legal knowledge.
The term in Europe for "conflict of laws" is "private international law." That may help you in understanding what the text means.
The answer which you provide is entirely wrong, and shows an absence of legal knowledge.
The term in Europe for "conflict of laws" is "private international law." That may help you in understanding what the text means.
Discussion