Woy Woy International Systems ("WWIS") v. Granger (continued)

Same general situation but changed facts:

However, with investigation, the operative facts above have evolved and have changed somewhat to reflect greater knowledge (hint - please read carefully):

WWIS is a large multinational mining contractor based in Woy Woy NSW. Axel Granger is a citizen of Finland and resident of Greenland and was employed by WWIS to develop a mine in Greenland for a WWIS client. The client is unaffiliated with either WWIS or Granger and is a Swedish Corporation with its principal place of business in Stockholm. While employed by WWIS, Granger established bank accounts for hiring of local staff, contracting with local subcontractors and for the purchase of equipment and supplies.

Granger's written employment contract with WWIS provides that he is to be paid in Australian dollars and that an Australian superannuation account would be established and funded for him according to the prevailing legal rate for Australian employees. The contract further provided that Granger would have an annual performance review in Woy Woy which would be conducted by WWIS management and an independent body known as the Woy Woy All Stars. The contract specified that Granger's performance would be measured by Woy Woy best practice standards.

It now turns out that Granger appears to have seriously mismanaged the mining venture. His books and records have not been kept properly and fail to meet Australian accounting standards.

All of the accounts and payments authorised by Granger were made through financial institutions located in Copenhagen. The purported suppliers (real and possibly non-existent) dealt with by Granger were located in Greenland, Denmark, and NSW.

The legal and factual matrix in Greenland is somewhat complex. Greenland is a partially self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. While Greenland has many institutions such as banking, an airline and a University - all of these are located or headquartered in Copenhagen. Greenland has its own language - Greenlandic (an Inuit language). However most commerce and contracts are conducted in Danish and most citizens of Greenland do not speak or write English. Greenland has its own judicial system with trial and appellate courts. Final decisions of the High Court of Greenland may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Denmark on a discretionary basis.

Greenland has its own parliament but many areas of law in Greenland are still unified with the laws of Denmark and subject to the enactments of the Danish Parliament. Greenland has the right, subject to negotiation, to take-over areas of legal responsibility from the Danish parliament. However, the legal issues present in Granger's relationship with WWIS fall exclusively within areas of law still controlled by and reserved to Danish law, including al Danish choice of law rules.

Greenland is not currently a member state of the European Union. However, it was a member state of the predecessor European Economic Community but expressly withdrew. Denmark is a member of the European Union but, like the UK, never entered into financial union and thereby retained its own local currency. Sweden is a full member of the European Union but is not a member of NATO whereas Denmark is a member state.

For purposes of the following series of questions, assume that all claims would be classified as contractual. Also, disregard the Convention for the International Sale of Goods which does not apply in any event.

Here are a series of different factual situations that add to the information you have been provided with above. Treat each question independently of the others as they may be inconsistent in some cases. Select the most correct answer from the choices provided.

If there were no express choice of law and none could be inferred, and the NSW court decided that the transaction had its closest and most real connection with the Danish legal system because the court finds that fundamentally it is a contract to build a mine which relates to land; which would be the more correct statement?

A.

In this situation, it is possible that the Australian court would apply renvoi in which case it would look at the whole of the foreign law of Denmark including its rules for choice of laws.

B.

In this situation renvoi could not apply because under Rome I, renvoi is rejected.

C.

If the Australian court applied renvoi to the choice of Danish law and Danish law pointed to Australian law; then there would exist the infinite circle of renvoi pointing back and forth between courts.

D.

If the Australian court applied renvoi to the choice of Danish law and Danish law for some reason pointed to American law, the Australian court would find itself having to conduct an interest analysis in the American style of choice of law.

If there were no choice of law clause and no jurisdiction clause and WWIS commenced a lawsuit against Granger in California, which is most correct statement of choice of law?

A.

The California Court would ask if there were differences in the laws among the likely possible legal systems and the laws of California.

B.

If the legal systems were determined to be Denmark, Sweden and Australia and the laws of the three were found to be identical but not the same as California law, the court would just apply California law.

C.

If California applied a comparative impairment governmental interest test, it is likely that California does not have any interest in having its laws applied to this dispute.

D.

If the California interest analysis pointed to Australian law and Australian choice of law pointed to Danish law, the American court would apply Danish law

E.

If the California interest analysis pointed to Danish law, the American court would apply the substantive contract law of Denmark.

F.All of the above

G.

A, B, C and D

H.

A, B, C and E

I.

A, C, and E

If WWIS brings an action against Granger in France and the contract has a valid Australian choice of law clause but no exclusive jurisdiction clause, the following are likely events:

A.

Depending on French law, Granger may challenge in personam jurisdiction of the French court

B.

Granger may assert forum non conveniens because France is a clearly inappropriate forum

C.

Granger may assert forum non conveniens because there is a better forum than France available

D.

Because Australia is a double renvoi state, France must apply the whole law of Australia to determine which law Australian choice of law rules would select

E.

Because France, Sweden and Denmark are EU states, the matter would be transferred to the European Court of Justice.

F.

A, B, and D

G.

A, C, and D

H.

A, B, D, and E

I.

A, C, D and E

If there is no choice of law clause in the contract and none could be inferred and WWIS brings an action in NSW Supreme Court:

A.

The Australian court may initially find under its choice of law rules that the whole law of the Danish legal system applies because Granger was to perform services in Greenland where he resided and this area of law still falls within the Danish legal system and is most closely connected.

B.

If the Australian court found that the initial choice of law was the Danish legal system, the Australian court might then apply renvoi and apply Danish choice of law analysis.

C.

Under the Danish choice of law analysis, the court would first look to see if there were any differences between all of the possible legal systems and the forum's legal system and if none, then apply the law of the forum.

D.

Under the Danish choice of law analysis, the court would initially look to see which government's interests would be most impaired if its laws were not applied.

E.

If Danish choice of law analysis pointed to Australia, there would be the risk of the endless loop because Australia is a double renvoi state.

F.

A and B

G.A, B and C

H.

A, B, C, and D

I.

All of the above