Vice-Chancellor Slights` recent decision focused on another aspect of the “clear but thorough” proposal regarding the choice clauses of the laws – whether to ensure that all claims that might arise from the relationship created or linked to the agreement of the parties are governed by the same law. When a dispute arises in compliance with a merger agreement, it is not uncommon for contractual and unauthorized claims to respect that dispute – that is, in addition to allegations that either party has breached the agreement, there may also be claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, conversion, breach of trust obligation, unlawful interference and other similar claims that do not result from breach of obligations that do not result from breach of obligations. , but on the obligations imposed by the common law of a particular jurisdiction with some connection to the transactions provided for in the agreement. A 2009 article The Business Lawyer offered a similar proposal and a proposed clause.  On the basis of Professor Coyle`s last article, I would offer a slightly revised version of this legal choice clause proposed in 2009 as follows: national courts have different approaches to determining the applicability of forum selection rules. Many state courts are following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bremen, discussed above. See Professional Insurance Corp. Sutherland, 700 So.2d 347 (Ala. 1997). Some courts take a more flexible approach, contained in the restatement, which leaves the courts with considerable discretion in refusing to choose a forum of a party. In the development of commercial contracts, authors should clearly and accurately anticipate both the choice of legislation and the choice of forum, bearing in mind that the forum is not required to comply with existing legislation. Material law issues are governed by treaty law, while procedural issues are governed by Forum law.
In complex agreements, parties may wish that different parts of the agreement be subject to different legal systems, and the applicable legislation and the choice of intercessation clauses can be developed accordingly. The development of forum selection clauses for federal courts or their application in federal courts raises additional questions. The United States Supreme Court, Bremen v. Zapata Off-shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), held that “the [forum selection] clauses are valid and should be applied prima facie, unless the execution is deemed “inappropriate” by the reluctant party in the present circumstances.” The Court also stated that if “the choice of forum is made by experienced and demanding businessmen in a lengthy and compelling proceeding, and without compelling and contrary reason that it should be respected by the parties and applied by the courts,” and that the correct approach is to “explicitly enforce the forum clause, unless [the resisting party] can be clearly demonstrated that the application would be inappropriate and unfair. or that the clause was not valid for reasons such as fraud or overstepping. When considering the forum to be used for litigation as part of an agreement, the parties must consider several factors.