Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T18:57:28.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. 660 F.2d 854

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 1982 , pp. 385 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1982

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

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.