No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. 660 F.2d 854
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0002930000028724/resource/name/firstPage-S0002930000028724a.jpg)
- Type
- Judicial Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1982
References
1 Even though the New York Choice-of-Law rule provides that the entire case be governed by foreign law, the court of appeals considered that rule discretionary and applied New York law to the parties’ underlying obligation in the absence of any contrary contention by the parties. 660 F.2d 854, 860.
2 Id. at 861.
3 Ibid.
4 See Deutsche Bank Filiale Nurnberg v. Humphrey, 272 U.S. 517 (1926). A similar rule, reversing the traditional British practice, was adopted by the House of Lords in a controversial decision, Milangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd., [1975] 3 All E.R. 801.
5 660 F.2d at 863.