Exercises
1.Prepare answers to the following questions using paragraph form.
(1) Summarize the fact and the decision of Babcock v.Jackson,and comment on its influence on the American Conflicts Law.
(2) What is double-actionability? State its origin and development and analyze the reasons for its abolishment.
(3) Comment on the lex loci delicti and its application in Chinese law prior to the Conflicts Act of 2010.
(4) Summarize the conflict rules in torts under the Conflicts Act of 2010,and try to make an objective evaluation of them.
2.Multiple Choice
(1) Which of the following statements is true? ( )
A.In European civil law countries,there is unanimity over the definition of the lex loci delicti.
B.Under English law,double-actionability is still an important rule today.
C.Chinese private international law has changed fundamentally in the aspect of torts with the enactment of the Conflicts Act of 2010.
D.In Babcock v.Jackson,the decision of the New York of Appeals applied the lex loci delicti to determine the applicable law.
(2) A,a German citizen and B,a French citizen are the employees of a Hong Kong Company both of whom have habitual residence in Shanghai,China.One day,they took a ship from Singapore to China together.While the ship was on the high seas,A was injured by B out of an alleged assault.When the ship arrived in Shanghai,A filed an action against B for damages before a Chinese People’s Court in Shanghai.In this case,the Court shall apply ( ) under the Conflicts Act of 2010.
A.Chinese law B.the law of Hong Kong
C.international law D.Chinese law even if A and B chose German law
(3) Which of the following statements is not correct? ( )
A.The Conflicts Act of 2010 introduces party autonomy to torts.
B.Article 146 of the GPCL was abolished by the Conflicts Act of 2010.
C.The Conflicts Act of 2010 retains the rule of double-actionability.(https://www.daowen.com)
D.The Tort Liability Act of the PRC contains no choice-of-law rule for torts that involve foreign elements.
(4) Lyndell is a Spanish national and domiciliary.Lee,is an American national who habitually resides in Beijing.As they sell the same products in China via the internet,Lyndell often spreads false and unjust information against Lee on the internet.Now,Lee filed an defamation action before the People’s Court of Chaoyang District.With regards this defamation action,which of the following statement is true under Chinese law? ( )
A.Chinese law should be applied.
B.Spanish Law should be applied.
C.The law between Spanish law and Chinese law which is more favorable to Lee should be applied.
D.American law should be applied.
(5) Which of the following statements is NOT correct? ( )
A.The Private International Law Act of 2010 introduces party autonomy to torts.
B.The rule of double-actionability was abolished by the Private International Law Act of 2010.
C.In judicial practice,the parties can hardly reach agreement on the applicable law after the torts occurred.
D.The Private International Law Act of 2010 fails to provide special torts conflicts rules.
3.Case Analysis
(1) A was injured in a motor accident in Beijing,China,caused by the negligence of X.A and X are French nationals normally resident in England,but temporarily lived in Beijing.By Chinese law,A can only recover special damages for expenses and loss of earnings in the sum of RMB 2,000 yuan.By French law,he can also recover 30,000 yuan general damages for pain and suffering.A sued X in China,alleging that French law shall apply as it is the common national law of the parties; however,X argued that Chinese law shall apply as it is the lex loci delicti.Under the Conflicts Act of 2010,which law shall apply? Why?
(2) D,an American company,is the publisher of an online news magazine.The May 1 edition 2011 of this online magazine contained an article in which several references were made to P,a Chinese national and domiciliary.P contended that part of the article defamed him who decided to sue D.If you were the counsel of P,please answer the following questions with reasonable explanations:
First,in which country do you advise P to bring the suit?
Second,which law do you hope to govern the dispute?
Third,can a Chinese court exercise jurisdiction over this case? If the answer is “Yes,” which law should apply under the Conflicts Act of 2010?